Navy Prosecutor In Gitmo Case: fourth 9/11 plane shot down

Uh, did you not see the wreckage of the Valuejet plane in Florida that also went into the ground in a high speed dive? Of course you didn't because there was not much left larger than a bread box.

Next thing that will come is that 9/11 was a hoax and the buildings demolished.

Oh wait, this is that crowd.

there was not much left larger than a bread box

Are you sure about that Space Guy?
ValueJet 592 went into a swamp and approx. 20% of the remains of the victims were recovered (34 were identifiable) and 75% of the plane was recovered, including the engines.

I grew up so close to the runway at a military base in Jacksonville,Fl
I have seen,heard,and examined close up 3 high speed jet accident sites...I did alot of 4-wheeling in the woods where alot of them crashed.
Now when something hits the ground at lets just say 200-350miles an hour considering they were trying to land.
tThere is not alot of wreckage around the hole in the ground to begin with cause anything hitting the ground at that speed..if it is not drilled into the ground it flies off in all directions.
You might recover some of the debris from those woods(they used to be thick) but you will come across parts litterally miles away from them...we used to find them behind the go-cart track all the time.

But yeah I think flight-93 may have been shot down if the pilots of any military craft that were following and noticed erratic behavior in the plane and it heading over a populated area soon..yeah I think they would have gotten the order to shoot it down and sacrifce the passengers lives to stop the plane from hitting a populated area.

But yeah I think flight-93 may have been shot down if the pilots of any military craft that were following and noticed erratic behavior in the plane and it heading over a populated area soon..yeah I think they would have gotten the order to shoot it down and sacrifce the passengers lives to stop the plane from hitting a populated area.

I agree, any number of sound reasons based on military security concerns. There is a protocol to do so, and this would have been a very logical point at which to exercise that protocol.

TINA1

NORAD was conducting an exercise that day called Vigilant Guardian. It included Terrorists attacks, and a scenario to be run that day was a hijacking.

The belief that Cheney ordered a stand down is a confusion of the Air Force ordering a stand down of Vigilant Guardian

See this link , and this link.

There were military planes in the air, and scrambled specifically for the hijackings. But they were given conflicting info on locations of the planes, because the transponders had been turned off, and blips could not be correctly identified.

AS for planes going after Flight 93, there were planes in the air over DC, ready to intercept 93 if it approached. See this link. Read the testimony. It's pretty interesting.

Incidentaly, the Vice President usually doesn't give orders to the military. He's technically not in the chain of command.

Incidentaly, the Vice President usually doesn't give orders to the military. He's technically not in the chain of command.

Usually, yes. There's no doubt that the Vice President is not the Commander in Chief. Yet nobody seems to have questioned his right to order military action. Bush was in Air Force One by then.

But that's the era we live in...

PH, one of the issues the 9/11 commission started to address was continuity of powers. It became a moot point when it was learned that at no time was Bush not in communication with the White House.

You just don't get it do you. You ask a question, I had knowledge of the answer, and provided same wtih references. This is exactly what I was talking about. You can't seem to grasp the concept of debate.

PH, one of the issues the 9/11 commission started to address was continuity of powers. It became a moot point when it was learned that at no time was Bush not in communication with the White House.

Except when Bush refused to leave the classroom in Florida until near his scheduled departure that appears to be true. In summary accounts of that period of time there is a claim that Cheney requested that the President authorize plane shoot-downs, though it's unclear if that request came before or after the downing of Flight 93. I don't doubt that such shoot-downs were authorized, but my assumption is that the request to the President was largely window dressing: Cheney was in charge of all military decisions that day. Bush was out playing canasta for the most part.

Well, I'm not going to touch the Bush in the Classroom thing.

Yes, the website I was referencing does an excellent job of pointing out the timeline issues, inlcuding references to back up its claims. And there are many, many timeline issues. You're correct in the shoot down order mixup. But the assertion that Cheney ordered a NORAD standdown doesn't pan out. It is not in the Air Force time line, nor the FAA time line. And there are lots of issues with that. Like when the FAA notified NORAD of the individual hijackings. They still can't agree, and the 9/11 commision was harsh on both of them for this.

I tried to find in this timeline a military jet scramble to intercept Flight 93, but cannot seem to find any refernce to interceptions, other than those loitering over DC. Does anyone have a reference that shows a military jet in trail with Flight 93?

Does anyone have a reference that shows a military jet in trail with Flight 93?

Yes, it was reported in an interview by a newspaper in Nashua, NH with local FAA controllers who were tracking Flight 93. The Nashua paper has since deleted its original story - several key primary sources have been deleted from newspaper sites - but there is evidence of the Nashua Telegraph story from a still-existing AP story that repeated the Nashua story:

FAA controllers notified concerned government organizations, such as the military, the employee said. Controllers also shut down all other air traffic quickly to get other planes away from the rogue aircraft, the employee said.

The Nashua controllers have learned through discussions with other controllers that an F-16 fighter stayed in hot pursuit of another hijacked commercial airliner until it crashed in Pennsylvania, the employee said.

Although controllers don't have complete details of the Air Force's chase of the Boeing 757, they have learned the F-16 made 360-degree turns to remain close to the commercial jet, the employee said.

"He must've seen the whole thing," the employee said of the F-16 pilot's view of United Flight 93's crash near Pittsburgh. The flight took off from Newark Airport for San Francisco, and authorities say the hijackers were headed for another target in Washington, D.C.

So it would appear that F-16s were in fact scrambled to intercept Flight 93 and that it had been in close engagement with it - close enough in all likelihood for a missile strike to succeed.

So if the official FAA story does not comply with earlier reports, one of many reports that were later suppressed or deleted, then I don't think that we should have great trust in any official report regarding the whereabouts and the path of Flight 93. Evidence has been suppressed. I see no reason why Cheney would not have ordered it. Clearly it was the responsibility of the Executive to do so at that point. So we have a conundrum at this point: we have conservatives saying that Cheney was authorized to shoot the plane down, acknowledging that it would have been the right thing to do, yet denying the evidence that he did. Why? Don't know, but my assumption is that without this the "Let's Roll" cover story falls apart and people will see just how much that their sentiments have been manipulated by the Bush administration.

There may actually be an explanation for this. The FAA actually thought they had another hijacked plane at the same time as Flight 93. That was Delta 1989. NEADS was aware of it, and Fighter aircraft from Ohio and Michigan were scrambled to intercept it. They escorted it to Cleveland.

The problem with Flight 93, and what makes the missile shoot-down less likely, is the FAA's admission that it failed to notify NORAD until just before it crashed.

Other claims:

Norad says it had an F-16 within 100 miles, but no pilot name, unit, base scrambled, etc.

The claim from the ATC about a buddy's story (what you posted)

CBS reports 2 F-16 within 60 miles.

An AWACS controller, with 3 F-16s, given orders to shoot down, but not able to vector before it crashes.

Director of ANG saying no planes were vectored to flight 93,

Two F-16 ANG pilots on a training mission, with no missiles and out of cannon rounds, ordered to intercept and crash into it if it refused to alter course. Didn't reach it before it crashed.

This last one brings up an interesting point. SOP for hijacking is to escort the plane, and attempt contact on the guard freq, and persuade to alter course to an airport designated by FAA. However, there is no evidence of this happening. Now if a shoot-down order had been issued, this would be a moot point. But I still have a hard time accepting that Cheney would have given that order, or that an Air Force Gen would have followed an order from someone not in his chain of command. I say this from my own military experience.

Now, let me play devils advocate for a moment. Let's say for argument sake that the jet was brought down my a military aircraft. First, what impact would this have? Would you, as a citizen, accept the shoot-down of a potential bomb, with 40+ people on-board, to prevent it from being flown into some building (Capitol building, Empire State Building, Sears Tower, etc.) with the potential for a greater loss of life?

What would be the response of the people if F-16's did intercept, and instead of shooting it down, just followed it into one of the above listed buildings? Would there be an cry of outrage at NOT doing anything?

Third, What kind of impact on our psyche would there be if we suddenly learned that every time we step on an airplane to travel, we may get shot down? (This may actually be the case now.)

Thanks for a reasoned approach to this matter. I would appreciate links to your sources if available. There still seems to be somewhat of a contradiction vs. the FAA controller's report of at least on F-16 being in the vicinity of the time of the crash. But your reports do confirm that there were scrambles, which had been initiated for several of the flights in question by then.

This last one brings up an interesting point. SOP for hijacking is to escort the plane, and attempt contact on the guard freq, and persuade to alter course to an airport designated by FAA. However, there is no evidence of this happening. Now if a shoot-down order had been issued, this would be a moot point. But I still have a hard time accepting that Cheney would have given that order, or that an Air Force Gen would have followed an order from someone not in his chain of command. I say this from my own military experience.

The 9/11 Commission confirmed that Cheney had given shoot-down orders. WaPo coverage, which points out that early on Cheney had claimed two flights had been shot down. There were several mainstream news reports (one from ABC News) that Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta testified that Cheney was very involved in shoot-down orders. From the article:

Mineta's account also suggests it was Cheney who was most involved in an early and dramatic decision: to shoot down any errant planes.

In his testimony, Mineta said that about 9:25 a.m. he heard an unidentified man in the bunker reporting on the progress of a plane heading toward the Pentagon.

When the plane was 10 miles out, the man "said to the vice president, "Does the order still stand?' " Mineta testified. "And the vice president whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the order still stands.' "

Now, this specific exchange seems to relate to Flight 77, which hit the Pentagon. There is some controversy as to what that order was, but clearly Cheney was in the chain of command for shoot-down orders.

Now, let me play devils advocate for a moment. Let's say for argument sake that the jet was brought down my a military aircraft. First, what impact would this have? Would you, as a citizen, accept the shoot-down of a potential bomb, with 40+ people on-board, to prevent it from being flown into some building (Capitol building, Empire State Building, Sears Tower, etc.) with the potential for a greater loss of life?

What would be the response of the people if F-16's did intercept, and instead of shooting it down, just followed it into one of the above listed buildings? Would there be an cry of outrage at NOT doing anything?

Well, I agree that this brings up a troubling point - one that points to the "Let's Roll" story as a potential cover story. I agree that the public would be a little extra freaked-out by the government shooting down our own planes. So a cover story would have been in order, hence the elimination of news reports that would contradict the official story and the gagging of key personnel. Now, was "Let's Roll" a complete fabrication? I don't know, that's a pretty elaborate hoax if it were so, but certainly very doable. There's some question as to the nature of the voices on the calls and the relative calmness of relatives receiving those calls. Perhaps there was an actual effort by passengers to take over the cockpit - none of the other flights attempted this, but you never know - but my guess is that it at least some portion of the cockpit voice recording and the "Let's Roll" calls was embellished after the fact to serve as a psy-ops piece to control public opinion.

Third, What kind of impact on our psyche would there be if we suddenly learned that every time we step on an airplane to travel, we may get shot down? (This may actually be the case now.)

All the more reason for a cover story. Myself, I think that it's now open knowledge in the world that the U.S. will not hesitate to shoot down its own planes if need be to deter terrorism. Which brings us back to the original testimony from this detainee. If potential terrorists know that we'll shoot down planes, then they're not likely to try that as a means of attack. Well, whaddayaknow, we haven't had any plane incidents since 9/11. I think that this knowledge, even if concealed from the consciousness of average Americans, acts as a strong deterrent. In the Cold War the Russians made it clear that they would rather let hostages die than to negotiate with terrorists. That's a lesson that we had to learn the hard way.

Here is the link for those other scenarios I was listing. It's from the same site as the ones above. I like the site, because they give references for all of their entries in the time line. If you try to follow the time line, as they have listed it, and they list it per the references, you soon learn that many entries duplicate themselves, because the references have different times. Just goes to show that it was very chaotic that day, and I'm sure some people's recollection of exact times were off. This was a huge problem for the commission.

Anyway, you hit on the point I was trying to get to. IF we shot down our own plane, and my moral compass says this could be acceptable AS A LAST RESORT, you know as well as I do that there would still be a public outcry. So, perhaps a cover story? Then we have another outcry about a cover up. Damned if you do, Damned if you don't. If it is a cover story, then my feelings are split. First, I can understand the rational behind it, shield the public from the harsh truth that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. On the other hand, part of me says, don't treat me like a child. I can handle the truth of a policy to shoot down rather than let them suicide crash a plane.

I do believe that "Let's roll" occurred. I think that it was too big to fabricate as a cover story, and the calls were happening before the crash, and hence long before a missile would have been fired. But I will need a little more convincing, perhaps some physical evidence to accept a missile shoot down. I'm not saying it couldn't have happened, just that I haven't seen enough to convince me yet.

As for Cheney:
A. If he gave an order to shoot down, that was a serious breech of the Chain of Command.
B. If he relayed an order to shoot down, which is what much of the testimony may be referring to, then I can understand the confusion as to where it came from.
C. Keep in mind that shoot down orders WERE issued. At question is exactly when. If you try to follow it in that link, you will see what I am talking about.

Thanks, History Commons is excellent, I've relied on it to get some real perspective on events. In "the fog of war" you need to assemble all the pieces carefully and I think that they do a good job of that.

So, perhaps a cover story? Then we have another outcry about a cover up. Damned if you do, Damned if you don't.

Well, it seems that the Bush war plans are littered with cover-up stories which, even when they've been blown, have not been pursued heavily by the media. The media is cowed - they don't want to go there. And the American people were, at least at the time, totally cowed. It doesn't appear that it took much to comb out a few messy details.

Perhaps there were some elements of "let's roll" that occurred, but looking at the timeline I wonder whether some of these phone calls could have actually occurred. It was only as the plane neared Shanksville that it was at a fairly low altitude. I don't know about you but in those times that I've left my cell phone on accidentally in a plane I'm not getting a signal once we're up at any significant altitude. It could be that an anecdote that happened - but not necessarily in a "cause and effect" way - was packaged for public consumption with some embellishments added after the fact to round out the story. It's important to remember that it took several days before a possible shoot-down was out of press accounts.

On Cheney I think that "B" was the probable thing. I agree that the "when" is somewhat up in the air.

And that's about it, I guess. It would be interesting to research this in more detail some time.

I agree PH. Good discussion sir.

When Newsvine does what it should, it's a wonderful place.

There's also been some speculation that it was bound for WTC7 so that the impact could explain the collapse. As we know it landed in the same free-fall way the twin towers did, sans airplane.

I was just thinking of the timing of it all, if they wanted to make the "biggest bang for the buck" hit the WTC, Pentagon and the White House or CIA would make a huge impact as all of them are easy to spot from the sky.

I hate to rain on the parade, but the debris field depends very much on the angle of impact. Ie, a 90⁰ impact (vertical) would leave a very small debris field. Lessening angles of impact will increase the debris field. Also, being shot down would create a huge debris field as pieces of debris would immediately start to fall off the plane from the point of initial missile contact... till impact with terrain some miles later. The more missiles fired, the more debris. So, the question now becomes, why haven't we seen hundreds of farmers proudly displaying, on the evening news, the piece of airplane they found while plowing their fields that morning? The short answer is because they haven't found any, ergo, no missile strikes.

While I'm no expert, I sat on dozens of accident investigations and visited as many accident sites in my 22 yrs. in the Air Force. I can confirm first hand that a vertical decent will leave a very small crater with very little debris (most gets vaporized by the incredibly high impact pressures).

Jim Dent wrote:

being shot down would create a huge debris field as pieces of debris would immediately start to fall off the plane from the point of initial missile contact... till impact with terrain some miles later.

But Jim, this is exactly what happened, pieces were found as far as 8 miles away from the crash site.

Far-Flung Debris

Local officials stated that crash debris was spread over a wide area. According to the Pittsburg Post-Gazette, state police Major Lyle Szupinka "confirmed that debris from the plane had turned up in relatively far-flung sites, including the residential area of Indian Lake." 1 The residential areas of Indian Lake range from three to six miles from the crash site. As noted on the pages describing Flight 93 and its crash site, there were a number of debris fields. Small debris descended over Indian Lake and New Baltimore, about three and eight miles from the primary crash site, and an engine core was separated from the main impact crater by about 2000 feet.

Some officials have suggested that wind scattered the debris once on the ground, but wind certainly couldn't have blown a one-ton engine a half-mile, nor could the 9-mile-per-hour wind have blown debris for eight miles.

An article in Popular Mechanics attempts to explain the far-flung debris by suggesting that the engine "tumbl[ed] across the ground" and that the light debris was "blasted skyward by the heat of the explosion from the crash." Such scenarios are impossible given the nature of the crash, wherein the plane dove into the soft ground from a nearly vertical trajectory. This is evident in the deep impact crater whose shape mimics the cross-section of the aircraft, and by the agreement among eyewitness that the plane dropped from the sky in a vertical fashion.

Source: http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/flight93/index.html

I hate to rain on the parade, but the debris field depends very much on the angle of impact. Ie, a 900 impact (vertical) would leave a very small debris field.

If this were true then an intact plane entering at that angle should have left the wings somewhere nearby. Not seeing that this is what happened. Given the mass of the plane we should have seen much, much more debris at this site. Almost none.

Also, being shot down would create a huge debris field as pieces of debris would immediately start to fall off the plane from the point of initial missile contact... till impact with terrain some miles later.

Well, yes, we shoud have - and, according to many reports, we did.

The more missiles fired, the more debris.

And, perhaps more TINY debris that doesn't get noticed. It found them a long time to find a good portion of the Challenger after it blew up because it disintegrated so thoroughly..

So, the question now becomes, why haven't we seen hundreds of farmers proudly displaying, on the evening news, the piece of airplane they found while plowing their fields that morning?

My guess is that most pieces were too small to notice, as with the Challenger. And others, if found, were not found, now were they? Right?

Could be a cover story, but you never know. Seems to make sense.

Morwynd, from your link...

Witnesses at Indian Lake, at least two miles from the crash site, reported small debris raining down on the lake.
"It was mainly mail, bits of in-flight magazine and scraps of seat cloth," Tom [Spinelli] 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 [...] from the crash site. 10

"mainly mail bits"... still doesn't indicate a missile hit, and neither does a piece of an engine 2000 yds. away. Were flt. 93 hit by a missile at cruising altitude (I would guess they'd have no forewarning), they would be approx. six to eight miles high, traveling at about six hundred miles an hour. The debris field would be on the order of 50-100 square miles and would include much more that one piece of an engine and "bits of mail" raining down.

Sorry, you'll have to have much more than this as evidence of a missile attack.

Allow me to add a little...

Kelly Leverknight was watching news of the attacks when she heard the plane. "I heard the plane going over and I went out the front door and I saw the plane going down. It was headed toward the school, which panicked me, because all three of my kids were there. Then you heard the explosion and felt the blast and saw the fire and smoke."[56] Another witness, Eric Peterson, looked up when he heard the plane, "It was low enough, I thought you could probably count the rivets. You could see more of the roof of the plane than you could the belly. It was on its side. There was a great explosion and you could see the flames. It was a massive, massive explosion. Flames and then smoke and then a massive, massive mushroom cloud."[57] Val McClatchey had been watching footage of the attacks when she heard the plane. She saw it briefly, then heard the impact. The crash knocked out the electricity and phones. McClatchey grabbed her camera and took the only known picture of the smoke cloud from the explosion.[58][59] Conspiracy theorists have accused her of manufacturing the photograph.[60] Link

If you'll notice, there's one common thread among the eyewitnesses... not a one of them claimed to see evidence of damage, smoke, fire, nor anything that could even be remotely described as "being shot down by a missile." Where's the eyewitness who exclaimed "OMG the tail is missing?" Or a wing was missing, or an engine was on fire, or it was trailing thick black smoke.... ANYTHING to even remotely suggest the aircraft had been damaged in any way?

Three eyewitnesses, zero reports of a missile attack. Still think "we" shot it down?

Jim:

Do you really think that you can rely on eyewitnesses? Who's to say they weren't paid to say or not say something? Or, thinking of this administration...who's to say people weren't threatened to say or not say something? If you were threatened by this admin. would you take it seriously? For one, I don't believe the plane was shot down. I'm just throwing a wrench in your logic.

Do you really think that you can rely on eyewitnesses? Who's to say they weren't paid to say or not say something? Or, thinking of this administration...who's to say people weren't threatened to say or not say something?

Well I certainly can't argue with that, can I? I suppose anything's possible. As the old saying goes, if pigs had wings, they wouldn't bump their asses when they landed. Anything's possible, it's the "probability" that's against it.

A room full of radar controllers who saw the interceptors pull in behind flt. 93 and fire their missiles. The ground crews who saw their jets return sans missiles, the pilots themselves, the eyewitnesses, the spouses of all of them. The problem with conspiracies is that as the conspirators grow in numbers, the greater the probability one of them will eventually "spill the beans." Until that happens... well, it's just a conspiracy theory, with no facts to back it up.

A few more eyewitnesses...

"It dropped out of the clouds," too low for a commercial flight, Butler said. The plane rose slightly, trying to gain altitude, then "it just went flip to the right and then straight down."

He radioed back to his office, telling coworkers Homer Barron, 49, and Jeff Phillips, 30, what he had seen.

"I told them a plane crashed. At first they didn't believe it, because you know, we do joke around."

Then Barron saw smoke and called 911.

Lee Purbaugh, 32, working just his second day at Rollock Inc., a scrap yard next to the reclaimed strip-mine land, looked up from operating a burning torch to see the jetliner just 40 feet above him.

"I couldn't believe this," Purbaugh said.

"I heard it for 10 or 15 seconds and it sounded like it was going full bore," said Tim Lensbouer, 35, Purbaugh's coworker. Link

Notice again the complete lack of fire or smoke trails, missing bits, pieces flying off... anything to indicate to the witnesses missile damage.

Eric Peterson, 28, was working in his shop in the Somerset County village of Lambertsville yesterday morning when he heard a plane, looked up and saw one fly over unusually low.

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. Source.

once again, no fire or smoke from the missile(s) damage.

Tedd

Check the Valuejet Crash in Florida. Don't be fooled by the misinformed Americans.

The debris field would be on the order of 50-100 square miles and would include much more that one piece of an engine and "bits of mail" raining down.

Well, in fact was that wide of an area searched? I don't think so. When Challenger exploded they searched at least that large an area and had a great deal of difficulty locating debris. There is also the issue of local newspaper reports, not conspiracy journals that indicate widespread debris. From the Post-Gazette:

Finding the flight data recorder had been the focus of investigators as they widened their search area today following the discoveries of more debris, including what appeared to be human remains, miles from the point of impact at a reclaimed coal mine.

Residents and workers at businesses outside Shanksville, Somerset County, reported discovering clothing, books, papers and what appeared to be human remains. Some residents said they collected bags-full of items to be turned over to investigators. Others reported what appeared to be crash debris floating in Indian Lake, nearly six miles from the immediate crash scene.

Workers at Indian Lake Marina said that they saw a cloud of confetti-like debris descend on the lake and nearby farms minutes after hearing the explosion that signaled the crash at 10:06 a.m. Tuesday.

There are also eyewitnesses to the scenes of debris falling.

The main problem I have with Flight 93 is that the impact zone is so, so small and there are some sizable things like airline seats that were found at Indian Lake. The quantity of debris at the site and the size of the plane don't seem to add up. Put this together with the eyewitness evidence and there's the strong suggestion of a midair event of some sort.

space guy,

I have not spent the hours of research on this one like many have, from what I have read, the facts I have seen line up pretty well with what Jim D. explained and documented. My attention at the time of 9/11 was on the city of New York where my Dad lived, so the other events of the day, I did not pay as much attention to nor have the experience in that field to make an realistic and intelligent guess. I am just hanging back an keeping my ears open, so far Jim's logic makes sense at this point.

The main problem I have with Flight 93 is that the impact zone is so, so small...

And this indicates a missile attack how exactly?

..and there are some sizable things like airline seats that were found at Indian Lake.

Airline seats? Where did you hear that?

FACT: Wallace Miller, Somerset County coroner, tells PM no body parts were found in Indian Lake. Human remains were confined to a 70-acre area directly surrounding the crash site. Paper and tiny scraps of sheetmetal, however, did land in the lake. "Very light debris will fly into the air, because of the concussion," says former National Transportation Safety Board investigator Matthew McCormick. Indian Lake is less than 1.5 miles southeast of the impact crater — not 6 miles — easily within range of debris blasted skyward by the heat of the explosion from the crash. And the wind that day was northwesterly, at 9 to 12 mph, which means it was blowing from the northwest — toward Indian Lake. Source.

The quantity of debris at the site and the size of the plane don't seem to add up

Again, how would this be indicative of a missile attack? The debris field is small, OK. Are you trying to say there's debris elsewhere? If so, where? A missile will knock large chunks off an airplane, way too large to be missed. It's been seven years, where are they?

Put this together with the eyewitness evidence and there's the strong suggestion of a midair event of some sort.

But in fact the eyewitness accounts would tend to indicate otherwise, as none reported evidence of a missile attack.
Btw, your Challenger example doesn't hold water, it burned up entering the atmosphere. Which is completely unrelated to a crashing jet.

Well, Jim, with due respect you're quoting Popular Mechanics, which did a horrible whitewash of the events in NYC, so I don't lend it much credence as a source. I like to stick to primary sources where possible. The Post-Gazette is a primary source, conducted interviews with eyewitnesses and didn't have a dog in the fight.

And this indicates a missile attack how exactly?

Sounds to me like there wasn't that much plane that hit there. If that's the case, then one assumes that there was more plane elsewhere. If the coroners were able to identify about 30 of the 44-odd bodies at the main impact site, then there's reason to think that perhaps some portion of the plane deposited itself elsewhere.

Airline seats? Where did you hear that?

From the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:

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

He said FBI agents who spent the afternoon patrolling the lake in rented boats eventually carted away a large garbage bag full of debris.

There's also this interesting anomaly from Fleegle's statement, emphasis mine:

"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.

Then?

The lights flickered and then he heard engines screaming and then the crash. What would have caused lights to flicker before hearing the sound of the plane?

Lots of things seem to indicate a pre-crash event.

I don't think that PM is a good source for 9/11 investigation. First, it's a secondary source, it just condensed the official stories. Secondly, it's report on New York was clearly not lining up with data from primary sources. Thirdly, it doesn't appear to to corroborate eyewitness testimony.

You can't just filter out sources that are troublesome. You have to deal with the facts on the ground from reliable sources and take it from there.

Well, Jim, with due respect you're quoting Popular Mechanics, which did a horrible whitewash of the events in NYC, so I don't lend it much credence as a source.

As I understand, pretty much none of you conspiracy people give PM much credence. I guess that's understandable, but to the best of my knowledge, the rest of the world see's them as a credible source. If you could point out a specific mistake in the page I sourced, I'd be happy to entertain their credibility issue, otherwise I'll consider them credible.

As for airline "seats," go back and reread your source. They clearly stated "pieces" of airline seats... not seats as in the whole assembly. Given the lightness of the foam and fabric, I don't find this surprising at all.

What would have caused lights to flicker before hearing the sound of the plane?

I'm sure I have no idea... I doubt the flicker had anything to do with flt.93 though... coincidence maybe, poor recollection.. who knows. If it was caused by a missile, wouldn't the course of events go something like; lights flicker, sound of exploding missile, engines screaming overhead, etc. Lights flickering are neither proof nor indicative of a missile attack (exploding missiles don't interrupt electrical power transmission unless directed at said power transmission, and certainly not from 30,000 ft.).

Lots of things seem to indicate a pre-crash event.

Lots? Such as what? Flickering lights? "Pieces" of seats floating in a lake? Not to be facetious, but a garbage bag of debris from a lake is proof of what, besides showing that a huge impact blast can launch light materiel (with the winds help) up to a mile and a half away?

What exactly are the "lots" of things that point to a pre-crash event (missile attack).

You can't just filter out sources that are troublesome. You have to deal with the facts on the ground from reliable sources and take it from there.

Exactly. Just because PM is "troublesome," doesn't mean you can filter it out.

Partisan Hack: Well, in fact was that wide of an area searched? I don't think so. When Challenger exploded they searched at least that large an area and had a great deal of difficulty locating debris

That's not true. There was tons (literally) of debris. Cameras saw it splashing in the water, much floated on shore and along the gulf stream. And then, the heavy stuff sank. There were many pictures of Coast Guard ships returning with recovered debris.

Jim,

Again, with due respect, PM did not do any direct research at the scene. They simply cherry-picked from official reports. I am glad to acknowledge that the PM story was reasonably accurate where they debunked theories that were clearly not based on physical evidence, primary research or direct accounts. But the problem is that if the ONLY source that's true is one that filtered out 99 percent of the evidence for a general reading public in a very brief article and you're not willing to engage any of those primary sources then you're basically saying the the truth can be ONLY the PM article. It makes for a very defensive position that doesn't engage the facts. In science an experiment that proves a theory should be reproducible. If you provide only a conclusion but not data to guide one's thought processes, then you're trusting one person's opinion. I'd rather understand the primary facts of the matter.

One of the better objective compilations of mainstream news sources is History Commons, here are sources relating to questions about the breakup of Flight 93. Unfortunately every source that I have tried, including Factiva, does not have archives of certain articles from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Apparently some have been purged.

I guess I am grasping how human remains and pieces of an airplane that are not light objects such as floating pieces of paper can be ejected from an impact point to another point more than two miles away. Here is a link to a Google map depicting the crash site and the location of the Marina where quoted eyewitnesses were located. As you can see, it's about two miles as the crow flies. Eyewitness accounts recount debris falling from the sky after hearing the sound of the impact in Shanksville. One account has it as "moments" after, which of course would be problematic. Others have it at a few minutes later. So I guess the questions becomes, how does it start raining solid debris two miles from the crash site several minutes after the impact? Paper I can understand could drift in a breeze for some distance. But seat parts, body parts? If the impact was at 90 degrees, as some eyewitnesses have it, I am not quite sure how the physics of that would work. Other official reports have the entry angle at 40 degrees, a fairly shallow angle. Not sure. In any event, at a rough calculation if the debris hit the lake two miles away five minutes after the impact, to pick a likely rough number, it would have been traveling at roughly 125MPH in a straight line measurement to get there. Presumably if the debris came from the impact site that would represent the lateral velocity of debris shooting up and then falling in an arc. So the question becomes how much velocity does a small bone fragment need to be shot up in an arc upwards that will carry it two miles away at 125 MPH lateral velocity? And, more to the point, what would be the impetus for that projectile? If the plane was heading into the ground at approximately 500 mph then whatever shot it that far had to overcome an enormous amount of downward velocity first. Literally you would need something shot at approximately the same speed as a bullet shooting out of the muzzle of a gun. If the plane was coming in at a 40 degree angle from the west the presumed flight path, perhaps that's enough.

Looking at the map, of course, raises another question. The marina at Indian Lake is two miles east of the crash site. Note Fleegle's quote again, new emphasis mine:

"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.

I think that a normal interpretation of this statement would be that Fleegle heard a jet passing closely overhead that crashed moments later.

One problem with that assumption. The official flight path of Flight 93 was approaching the crash site from the west. To have passed closely overhead it would have had to have been approaching from the east.

You have to ask yourself: if this plane was shot down, why is that a problem? It was apparently targeted for the Capitol. Already by that time the two WTC towers were hit. Wouldn't it be a normal response to sacrifice a plane for the sake of democracy?

I don't have any problem with the fellow's lawyer having mis-spoke, but it seems as if there may be something more here. I keep an open mind.

OK, I'm bowing out after this comment...

and you're not willing to engage any of those primary sources then you're basically saying the the truth can be ONLY the PM article. It makes for a very defensive position that doesn't engage the facts.

PH, I'm not really sure what to make of this comment. If you reread all my comments, you'll find that I listed SEVEN sources for my information. Only one of those was Popular Mechanics. You have twisted that into "...then you're basically saying the the truth can be ONLY the PM article."

Where to start... disingenuous, twisting the facts... Seriously dude, if PM rubs you that bad, I withdraw the reference. I hope you'll note that the only reason I used PM was to point out that no reports of intact seats (as you claimed) were found in the lake. A fact that was born out by your very own source that stated "seat parts". And for that I'm accused of having a "defensive position that doesn't engage in facts." As you can guess, I didn't bother to read the rest of your comment. See ya 'round the funny pages...

i hope you sneak back Jim.

Reading these speculations and different accounts the anomaly as I see it, and this is where your experience would be helpful Jim, is that the major crash site was limited in size but certain witnesses stated the plane was flying very low.

Could a plane at minimal altitude pull off a vertical crash? it would seem to me the lower the altitude the larger the angle of impact.

I'm not interested in the missile angle. Immaterial one way or the other.

Jim,

You'll never be able to convince the conspiracy theorists, no matter what proof and references you use. You can't expect someone to recognize the truth if they don't want to see it and refuse to recognize it. If it doesn't fit into the cherry picked 'facts' they use to concoct their theories, they will throw it out as a government conspiracy to hide the truth.

That's why they put blinders on horses, so the horse can only see what the rider wants him to see.

Spikgary, you are dead on. Even when you start showing credible evidence to refute them, they resort to that age old practice of "The dodge".

Jim,

I do see your other links to primary articles, and I thank your for that. I agree that I shouldn't have emphasized the PM angle so much, it doesn't represent your other sources. I do apologize for that.

I keep an open mind on this, I see no reason why a shoot-down would not have been appropriate if the plane was destined for the Capitol and three other successful attacks were already known. If anything I think that knowledge of this being in the hands of the public would help to deter further events of this kind if they were indeed carried out by terrorists. The eyewitness evidence does not seem to support conclusively that the plane was undamaged prior to impact nor does it seem to support conclusively a scenario that would support all of the debris that came from the plane having been ejected from the crash site. I am glad to have the truth be whatever it is, but I don't like to deal with "cherry picked" information any more than you. I just try to highlight what seems to be anomalous. All of the evidence must be accounted for to make a sound conclusion, even if it's not what we may not want to hear.

As for "seat parts," neither you nor I have seen these parts, apparently they were not whole assemblies. The fellows who were at Indian Lake raced to the crash scene and apparently were finding a burning seat cushion at that site on top of a cabin. But I am concerned about the eyewitness reports that indicate that there was debris falling off the plane prior to collision. From the Tribune-Review:

Crowley said the FBI and NTSB have not determined whether a bomb exploded inside the aircraft before it crashed. Residents of nearby Indian Lake reported seeing debris falling from the jetliner as it overflew the area shortly before crashing.

There are direct quotes to this effect linking to articles that have been removed apparently, but this at least indirect corroboration of the presence of these quotes in a mainstream news source.

There are also reports from the Nashua Telegraph in New Hampshire about an FAA air traffic controller who was tracking an F-16 on the scene of the crash site. The original story for this has also been removed, but again there is secondary evidence of its existence from an AP story that references it, emphasis mine:

In Pennsylvania, an emergency dispatcher received a cell phone call at 9:58 a.m. from a man who said he was a passenger locked in a bathroom aboard United Flight 93, said dispatch supervisor Glenn Cramer in neighboring Westmoreland County. The man repeatedly told officials the call was not a hoax.

"We are being hijacked, we are being hijacked!" Cramer quoted the man from a transcript of the call.

The man told dispatchers the plane "was going down. He heard some sort of explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane and we lost contact with him," Cramer said.

9.58 AM would have seen about eight minutes before the generally agreed crash time. Were a missile to have been the source of such an explosion it would most likely have been a heat-seeking variety, which would have locked on to an engine. One of the two engines on the place was found about 2000 yards - more than a mile - north of the crash site. A loss of an engine on one side of the plane would help to explain the spiraling motion described by many witnesses at the site. This is conjectural, but seemingly logical. It's unclear to me as to why one large part of an engine would be found so far from the impact crater and yet no other substantially sized piece was found elsewhere. It's having become detached from the plane prior to impact would be a logical conclusion. I am running out of time here but I did find another source quote from a mainstream source which indicates that there was an explosive sound before the crash heard at ground level. There are also secondary references to missile sounds from Vietnam veterans north of the impact site which are not definitive enough to correlate in a timeline account.

I think that you and many others are Americans of good intent, as I am, and that the truth will be whatever it is. As to what happened inside that cabin we may never know, but at this time my working hypothesis for these events that seems most logical at this time goes as follows:

1. A decision was made to down the place with a missile. At least one F-16 was scrambled for this purpose. Reports of a sound barrier being broken are mentioned, this might have correlated to a number of other phenomena such as broken windows and brief problems with electricity.

2. A heat-seeking missile hit a motor of the plane about eight minutes before impact. Debris from the impact of the missile or the ejecting motor parts opened a gap in the fuselage, but probably not a very large one.

3. The plane continued on an easterly path, with poor control, dropping rapidly. The hole in the fuselage was dropping large fragments of mail and other debris. The plane jerked hard to the right and headed back on a westerly path, heading low over Indian Lake, trailing debris. To viewers of the incident from other angles this debris was probably not noticed.

4. The plane jerked up, stalled, and then fell to the earth nose first in a stall dive at 500mph.

5. Debris was ejected into the air, pluming up and deposited mostly downwind from the site.

Whatever the truth may be we may find some day but these seem to be the result of concrete reported facts.

But many of the reports appear to have been suppressed, the FBI put gag orders on FAA and emergency response personnel, and the remains of Flight 93 are still under tight military guard.

Later on, America. Later on.

As for eyewitnesses has any one heard of mass hysteria? There has been structural engineers who swear that the building were imploded. We will never know the lies that we were told about this attacked but Bush sure got a lot of mileage out of it and now McCain is still referring to it. The only way that things that happened to our Constitution could have happened was through fear.

I took a Caribbean cruse December after the attacked and went through all the security. We were at the airport and one plane was delayed four hour because of an unclaimed suit case and there was a breach of security and all the concourses had to go back through the metal detectors. Everyone was jumpy and scared. The Natinoal Guard had their orders and treated everyone like a potential terrorist.

Those peope who were sitting around us expressed concern, but many were convienced that we were safe to travel and we were and have been since. We have had stupid searches added to our lives, but the threat to our domestic flights I beleive was another way of keeping us scared.

The alerts Orange and Red was another way of keeping us scared, but if you listened they told you not to change your habits go on with your lives just be scared. Well I lived through the threat of the a-bomb and you know what I don't scare easily and poop pooped it then and now.

So do I beleive that the flight 93 could have been shot down, yes I do and I beleive that the coverup was to protect the Government from lawsuits and revolt of the citizens against the Administration.

Those peope who were sitting around us expressed concern, but many were convienced that we were safe to travel and we were and have been since. We have had stupid searches added to our lives, but the threat to our domestic flights I beleive was another way of keeping us scared.

Fear and intimidation have been the hallmarks of this administration. An afraid electorate is not willing to think about options - just let the leader do what they think is right, I am weak, my power as a member of a democracy doesn't matter, and so on. It's a very powerful thing, quite corrosive.

I have never seen one just "disappear" in a field like that, usually they tend to leave pieces scattered all over the place and from the flight path

This concerned me at first but I have been looking photos of at other plane crashes that occured straight down at very high speed and saw similar small impact zones and debris ejected so rapidly and so far in tiny bits that there would appear to be relatively little in the crash zone itself.

I think that there's little doubt that a large plane crashed at that site, probably largely intact, and at a very high speed. But that leaves many other details unaddressed.

PH

I want to thank you for doing a bit more research on this and getting smarter on the subject.

Gives me slight hope.

There is a lot of research on this subject regarding the recovery of the bodies of pilots from Vietnam and Korea where high speed military jets crashed at high speed and how much of them that were left (very little).

That is another area of fruitful research.

space guy,

Nice that we can have a moment of agreement. I was highly doubtful of the impact zone being authentic at first but it aligns with other similar impacts - including the WTC towers. The planes traveling at more than 500 MPH hit not curtain walls but enormously strong steel outer shells in those towers - and sliced through them like they were butter. That said, it's worth noting that the planes at Shanksville did not appear to go more than 25-30 feet into sandy dirt. Planes are titanium tin cans, once you shear open the can there's not much left. Add an explosion to disperse its mass and there's even less mass available for further penetration.

With all this said, it does not seem to detract from the primary scenario of a disabled plane called Flight 93 veering wildly and then stalling before a final crash.

I have been interested in the subject since my brother was in Vietnam. I have read a lot about how little was left after an F4 Phantom plows into the ground at 400-600 mph. Usually they were lucky to find a piece of meat left.

Interesting that you call them conspiracy whackos, jimi. Yet, hasn't time proved that the current admin has told the American public (and the world) nothing but lies about the reasons behind the Iraq invasion? I seem to recall that the folks who spoke up back at the time upto and during the start of the war were also labelled "whackos".
Now these "whackos" have been shown to have had it right all along.

It is a known tried and true tactic that governments have caused mayhem in their own countries to ignite the fires of nationalism and patriotism for use in their own plans. They do this when they feel the populace will not go along with what they (the govt) wants.
Yep, that is very interesting.

Just because you and I wouldn't kill our own people to make money or further some other imperialistic agenda, doesn't mean that there aren't people who wouldn't.

Yet, hasn't time proved that the current admin has told the American public (and the world) nothing but lies about the reasons behind the Iraq invasion?

Lying does not follow the transitive property. Just because they have lied about one thing (and yes, I believe they have completely lied about many things including and besides the Iraq war), I have not yet to this day seen any convincing evidence of any conspiracy on the part of the US government in the role of 9/11. This includes the events surrounding WTC7 (Pamela Drews favorite topic...) and United flight 93. It especially includes the extreme theories of demolition by the US government of controlled demolition of WTC1/2, something I've gone round and round with WHACKOS on here about.

jimi-

You know, I was in complete agreement with your post.....until you used 'whacko' again. That was uncalled for baiting, and ruined your otherwise logical argument.

Lying does not follow the transitive property

No, but it is associative. Once a liar, always a liar. Lie down with dogs, arise with fleas. etc. etc.

You know, I was in complete agreement with your post.....until you used 'whacko' again. That was uncalled for baiting, and ruined your otherwise logical argument.

Sorry, this topic is one of the few that causes me to really get my ire up.

It a story because the govt believes it needs to protect us by lying. And this admin has pretty much been lying from day one. Personally, were I in that position, I would have ordered the plane shot down, as this would save more lives. But, the govt should've had more faith in the populace.
However, they may have lied because they didn't want questions about the other planes. And just like the Pat Tilman coverup and Jessica Lind (?) story, there is evidence that the govt will tell us anything or try to, to further an agenda.

I can't really comment on the rest of the article but eyewitness testimony is hardly reliable, despite the fact it is commonly used. Spend about 15 minutes reading any E.F. Loftus article.

As a rule, I'd agree with that, but pieces missing and/or falling off, fire and/or black smoke trails... you know...obvious signs a missile had struck. I think we can safely say than when none of the witnesses reported seeing any of that, it probably wasn't there...

Which leaves us to why Timothy Stone would make such a statement. I know nothing of him.
Any guesses Jim Dent?

No, not really.

As to planes looking small, it's dependent on altitude, air clarity and several other factors. The Air Force's C-5 Galaxy is the largest plane in the inventory in the U.S.-when it's flying at 1000 feet, it looks like it's right on top of you-when it takes off it looks like it's moving at about 25 MPH, though it's actually doing well over 100 MPH.

To the untrained eye, an airplane can look very low when it's not really low. I doubt these folks (working in a junkyard, etc.) are trained in airplanes, altitudes, meteorology, etc.

Please reference comment 3.25, there is significant evidence of pre-crash damage to the plane.

My assumption is that one side of the plane was damaged before crashing, most probably by a heat-seeking missile which hit one engine. My guess, based on what I've read so far of eyewitness accounts, is that there were basically two groupings of reports. One group to the east of the crash site seemed to report a very low-flying plane and "parts falling from the plane" prior to crash, not much mention of the attitude of the plane. The other group seems to have been to the north, west or south of the crash site, not as much mention of debris or damage. This would seem to imply that if there were damage to the plane that it was obscured from their line of vision. The plane was descending rapidly as it approached from the east, but apparently not directly into the crash site. By the time we get eyewitness reports of the plane, it's quite close - several minutes after the 9.58 distress call from a flight 93 passenger claiming an explosion and smoke coming from the plane. Whatever damage was done to the plane was already done, the motor already gone. People looking at the plane on the west-to-east approach are looking up at the undamaged side of the plane to the north, probably the right side. Plane heads past Indian Lake, sharp right turn. Now very close to ground, people really not seeing the plane from a distance well. Reports from the north still seeing the now-turned right engine. Reports from the west never saw the left side of the plane.

Just a thought-- Would it not be in the realm of possibility that in their effort to regain control of flight 93 that the aircraft was aerodynamically over stressed and came apart in flight?

Well, that would be structurally overstressed due to aerodynamic loads... but yeah, it's entirely in the realm of possibility. But, as I've been trying to politely point out all day here, all the eyewitnesses reported seeing an intact airplane fly into the ground. It's flight path might have been erratic due to inept piloting or passengers trying to overpower the hijackers, but to a man, all reports said the plane was intact.

I'm not saying here that I don't put it past our government to deceive us or even god forbid, kill it's own citizens. Absolutely nothing that comes from the Bush administration surprises me anymore. They are about as secretive, deceptive, and crooked as they come. I can honestly say that I am a card carrying Bush hater, but I won't let that get in the way of evaluating a situation on it's merits. When you look at flight 93, there is nothing there to suggest we shot it down.

Guess we should pull the UFOs out of Area 51 for an exact measurement

Psssst.... That's why Bush wants to drill in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge. They can use the activity as a cover, to build a new super secret base to house ALL the aliens in. That's why congress passed FISA, so they can start snooping Newsvine and other networking sites. They know where all the aliens hang out. This is my source!!

gatorhater, it's all fun and games until someone loses an eye!

::wink::

Yeah, I've heard that about viagra, too!! HUH!!!

Of course that is what it would be. The interesting part of this thread is to correlate those who believe that this plane was shot down, to those who think that it was a missile that hit the pentagon, to those who think that the trade towers were brought down by explosives, to those who believe in global warming, to those who think that our civilization is doomed.

The correlation is probably about 99%.

That tells you something.

Space guy, you forgot:

Grassy knoll shooter
Landing on the Moon hoax
Space Shuttle Columbia Shootdown
Space Shuttle Challenger Shootdown
TWA 800 shootdown
Pearl Harbor Coverup

You also forgot

Boston Tea Party Coverup
Civil War Coverup
WW1 Coverup
D-Day Coverup
WWII Coverup
Sputnik Coverup
Elvis Coverup
Area 51..no I am not going there..

And let's not forget Custer at Little big horn. It wasn't the Sioux that wiped them out. It was a cover up. No survivors, and such.

You guys....

We all know that the devil made them all do it!

See, There you go!

The devil is a coverup too! Just a fignewton of the Catholic Church to justify religion.

The interesting part of this thread is to correlate those who believe that this plane was shot down, to those who think that it was a missile that hit the pentagon, to those who think that the trade towers were brought down by explosives, to those who believe in global warming, to those who think that our civilization is doomed.

The correlation is probably about 99%.

That tells you something.

Well, if that's where rational thinking brings you, what of it? The issue isn't what you believe is true, the issue is what seems to correlate with objective evidence. We can deny rational thinking, or we can pay attention to it. We can look at only that portion of reality that pleases us or we can accept a somewhat broader view of reality and deal with the discomfort it brings.

Instead of trying to catalog people, just deal with the truth.

Oh I did.

lol that is a bit of a stretch

Laugh all you want, it's still the truth. As a Navy vet I know what I'm talking about . I guess that's why your name is "hard to argue with that" because you can't. What seems to me to be a stretch is believing some Arabs with finger nail files and duct tape with Macguyver like skill pulled off a coup de' ta and at the same time people like you say they come from a backward society. And to top it off, A Navy prosecutor and your boy Rumy both said it was shot down!!! So how do you explain a jet being shot down without causing a fire????!!!

Dre-

" A Navy prosecutor and your boy Rumy both said it was shot down!!!"

The Navy prosecutor didn't say it was........he was quoting Hamdan's words.

Yes, I believe you're right that some missiles like the 'Stinger' can be fired and strike a target without arming and exploding. But that leaves a couple questions: First, if it didn't explode then why was no trace of it found along with the aircraft? Second, if it was unarmed and passed through the fuselage completely, why has no trace of it been found in the countryside?

Most importently....why would anyone bother to shoot the airliner down with a non-exploding missile? If the aircraft explodes in midair, they'd be blaming the terrorists anyway, so why not claim they had a bomb on board and arm the weapon?

nearing you spend far to much time in front of that computer.

Nearing-

"Do we know these two assertions to be true?"

If you have creditable physical evidence of missile parts at the crash scene, removed from the crash scene, or positively linked to the crash scene....please provide.

"How should any of us know the criminals' motive? Please."

So I notice you failed to answer a reasonable, obvious and important question. One which points out a flaw in the reasoning. Instead you attempt to divert attention away from it by dismissing it as unimportant.

What "criminals" are you referring to? You don't specify that.

Diversion. Yep. That's on the list. Next, she will try the "Truth Movement" tactic.

There is eyewitness evidence from both on the ground and from in the plane itself that it was damaged prior to crashing. Link.

9/11 deniers tactic: when the evidence uncomfortably doesn't conform you a narrow politically correct view of reality attack the people bringing it to people's attention - even though it comes from highly credible mainstream sources.

The facts will be whatever the facts will be, but let's not call part of the truth "all" of the truth if it just doesn't add up.

You are linking to this thread PH.

Partisan Hack-

Well, that still didn't answer, or even address my question. See #15.7.

"9/11 deniers..."

PH, just so you know, I don't belong to any groups. I am by nature a skeptic, and would be suspicious of the motives of any group that would even have me, (to paraphrase an old joke).

I'm not an engineer or specialist, and also cannot invest the time to deeply investigate every claim someone makes of 'things not adding up'. So like most people I must rely on the preponderance of evidence. 'Could' and 'maybe' make for interesting parlor conversation sometimes, but that's all. Unless evidence of a conclusive nature can be presented, the accepted story cannot be successfully challenged. 'Eyewitness' accounts on both sides of the story are not the best or most reliable evidence of what took place either, because 'eyewitnesses' so often can be contradictory. With no conclusive evidence that any missile was fired, or struck the aircraft....it's no more than speculation. May as well 'speculate' that a falling satellite struck it, because there is no physical evidence one didn't.

I also didn't "attack" anyone here. My reasonable question was answered with a condecending attitude. The question has still not been answered.

No. Nor did you. Evidence of damage, even if it was credible, is not evidence of a missile. Is there credible physical evidence of a missile?

Is there credible physical evidence of a missile?

I think that there are four key factors that would argue for a missile:

1. The 9.58 cell phone call from the plane that indicated an explosion and smoke coming from the plane.

2. The 1,000-pound chunk of one engine found 2000 yards north of the site without a correlating chunk from another engine from what appeared to be a symmetrical impact with the ground, implying that some force removed that chunk prior to impact.

3. Eyewitness reports that Flight 93 was showering "parts" over Indian Lake and east of Indian Lake just prior to impact.

4. Confirmation from the Bush administration's account of this period that shoot-downs had been ordered of remaining planes.

Since no independent investigation was allowed to examine the remains of the plane that's about as far as we can go.

So in short, the answer is no. There is no conclusive evidence of a missile being involved.

"Since no independent investigation was allowed to examine the remains of the plane...."

I would not argue against allowing for more examination of the remains. But who is going to be selected at this point, years later, that will be considered an expert by all sides, and impartial by all sides, trusted by all sides, so that it doesn't just start another round of inconclusive speculation? What would all sides consider to be conclusive evidence of what did or did not take place?

Unless someone with definitive and verifiable firsthand knowledge steps forward, to not only verify an order to shoot being issued, but also that the order was carried out, and how it was carried out....it's still just speculation and not confirmation.

I would concede that there is no good reason I know of why a through physical reexamination of the remains cannot or should not be done. If for no better reason then to satisfy these speculative questions. But much of this is like trying to prove a negative.

I would concede that there is no good reason I know of why a through physical reexamination of the remains cannot or should not be done. If for no better reason then to satisfy these speculative questions. But much of this is like trying to prove a negative.

And this is the essence of the doctrine of "plausible denial," highly in favor in Bush's circles.

Yet we still have the basic formula:

1. A plane takes off intact
2. It's reported as not being intact and an explosion having occurred.
3. Then it crashes

Conclusion: something caused it not to be intact prior to crashing.

Take it from there.

So are you saying you don't want a re-examination of the wreckage?

"It's reported as not being intact and an explosion having occurred".- Unverified speculation.

"Conclusion: something caused it not to be intact prior to crashing." -Unverified speculation.

".....doctrine of "plausible denial,...."

Verses your doctrine of unproven speculation.

It actually sounds eerily reminiscent of Bush as he conned the public, press and politicians into approving of his invasion of Iraq based on flimsy evidence, sketchy reports and fear mongering.

Dubbya R,

Apparently you're like your namesake - believing the the reality that's convenient for you to believe in.

Let's take it again:

- Explosion on the plane and smoke: straight from a passenger on the plane, verified by emergency repsonse personnel, reported in a mainstream newspaper.

- Debris falling from plane prior to crash: taken from eyewitness testimony, reported in a mainstream newspaper.

- Presence of F-16 in contact with plane verified by FAA controller, reported in a mainstream newspaper.

Deal with the evidence, please, not the conclusion that you'd like to hear. Denial-mongering is not the solution.

"denial mongering." What an excellent turn of phrase.

Can I steal it? Please. Please. Please.

Creative Commons: credit the source on first use. :-)

Partisan Hack-

"When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff" - Cicero

The 'reality' I demand, is solid evidence.

The 'reality' you demand, is speculation based on the lack of solid evidence.

You are using tactics much more like the Bush admin then you realize.

The 'reality' I demand, is solid evidence.

The 'reality' you demand, is speculation based on the lack of solid evidence.

The solid evidence was falling from the sky and reports verified by reliable government employees.

You're free to claim that you've been made a victim, but by not engaging the evidence you are not doing the truth any favors. It is not speculation that these reports were recorded. It is a fact.

You're free to disbelieve these reports, but then you have to explain why we should not believe these reports but believe other eyewitness accounts. Explain all of the reliably reported facts and you come up with the working theory of what happened. It's that simple.

What's simple is that way up on this thread I asked a 'simple' question....is there solid physical evidence of a missile or not?

You have provided nothing but circumstantial evidence in response, and mistakenly claimed I did 'not engage the evidence'. Since you did not provide the evidence I asked for I haven't had it to engage.

You'll notice I never asserted a missile strike did not take place. For the simple reason I cannot know that conclusively one way or the other. Is it possible? Most certainly it is. Is it probable? That depends right now on how much weight you are prepared to give the circumstantial evidence, and I'm not giving it the weight you are....I want something more concrete.

"...been made a victim"? Hardly.

I want something more concrete

I would like something more concrete also. Unfortunately our government has concealed concrete evidence and has suppressed any investigation of it. I can live with not having exact knowledge of how that plane when down and faith in the reasonable evidence that points in all likelihood to an event causing an explosion prior to the crash. I am open to it being otherwise, but having seen mountains of evidence in NYC that point to something other than the official story being accurate I think that there's a likely pattern of fabrication, concealment and destruction of evidence that fits in with other activities of the Bush administration.

I hope you don't really mean that.

I am afraid, that having served faithfully as an army officer for a very long time, I am not quite sure I would so hastily arrive at this conclusion.

If I had been given that order...well, I wish to say at this time that a great more evidence needs to be shared for me to believe that an officer in the United States Air Force, and a fighter pilot at that, would commit such an act, especially without later coming forth to admit the same.

My ignorance shows.

Gotta agree with you on that.

Actually I do know how to spell, but when I'm typing on a keyboard I misspell a lot.
(As I pat myself on the back for NEVER taking any typing lessons,courses etc)
However for anyone to think they are better or more intelligent than someone else,because they can type correctly all the time.I think they must have a pea sized brain and an enormous ego.. IMHO.................................

Do have a WP program but never learned how to cut, copy, paste,and all that. Took a course in writing for children once and my instructor liked my informal style, so I am OK with that. I am not real clear about run on sentences though. I write about like I talk except my accent doesn't show up much. Jefferson said that it is a poor mind that can only think of one way to spell a word.

There is some controversy as to whether they actually breached the cockpit door and got to the terrorists. The recovered cockpit voice recorder reveals that the hijackers had the door closed, and first attempted to roll the plane left and right throw the passengers off balance. They can be heard saying "Hold, Hold, Hold from the inside!" They change tactics and start pitching the plane up and down. At one point, Jarrah (terrorist) ask "Is that it? Shall we finish it off?" Another terrorist replies, no, wait until they try again. This was at 10:00:08. At 10:02:23 the terrorist can be heard saying "Pull it down! Pull it down!". Recordings stop at 10:03:09.

Regardless of whether they got in the cockpit or not, with my Salutes to Mr Beamer, and the others, they stopped the mission.

We may never know what really happened, but one thing will always stand out, Mr. Beamer and the rest will go into history as true Americans.

-10:02:23 Pull it down. Pull it down. (the pull it down he is refering to is the handle of the door that is shaped like a small L)
10:02:25 Down. Push, push, push, push, push.
10:02:33 Hey. Hey. Give it to me. Give it to me.
10:02:35 Give it to me. Give it to me. Give it to me.
10:02:37 Give it to me. Give it to me. Give it to me.
10:02:40 Unintelligible.
10:03:02 Allah is the greatest.
10:03:03 Allah is the greatest.
10:03:04 Allah is the greatest.
10:03:06 Allah is the greatest.
10:03;06 Allah is the greatest.
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/flight93cvr.html
I'd think that the Terrorist is saying to him..
"Give it to me"....meaning... (the mostly likely weapon near a cockpit to break in a door is the fire extuingsher) ..so I am thinking that what they used and ol Habib there was telling him to give it up..cause those little toy boxcutter type knives can't hurt someone swinging one of those.

Dang Newsvine compressed the post.

-10:02:23 Pull it down. Pull it down. (the pull it down he is refering to is the handle of the door that is shaped like a small L)
10:02:25 Down. Push, push, push, push, push.
10:02:33 Hey. Hey. Give it to me. Give it to me.
10:02:35 Give it to me. Give it to me. Give it to me.
10:02:37 Give it to me. Give it to me. Give it to me.
10:02:40 Unintelligible.
10:03:02 Allah is the greatest.
10:03:03 Allah is the greatest.
10:03:04 Allah is the greatest.
10:03:06 Allah is the greatest.
10:03;06 Allah is the greatest.
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/flight93cvr.html
I'd think that the Terrorist is saying to him..
"Give it to me"....meaning... (the mostly likely weapon near a cockpit to break in a door is the fire extuingsher) ..so I am thinking that what they used and ol Habib there was telling him to give it up..cause those little toy boxcutter type knives can't hurt someone swinging one of those.

Amer:

I have seen some transcripts from the ATC recordings. There was one in particlular that asks some other planes close by in PA to confirm if Flight 93 went down. I will try to find a link for you.

Amer here is the link to the ATC Tapes
http://www.airdisaster.com/cvr/atcwav.shtml

It is the Top link United Flight 93

What I would like to see ...and I know it is recorded the Radar Screens from Clevland ATC

Jimbo,
that audio link is a dead link. I tried a few times to download it and it comes up blank page.....