Discovery Channel Presents "The Flight That Fought Back"

[smb]

Interesting historical perspective:

DISCOVERY CHANNEL PRESENTS THE FLIGHT THAT FOUGHT BACK: A REMARKABLE TRIBUTE TO THE HEROISM ABOARD UNITED AIRLINES FLIGHT 93

Minute-by-Minute Retelling of Attempt to Take Back the Plane is Most Comprehensive Effort To-Date

Never-Before-Heard Personal Accounts From Family Members and Rarely Heard Voice Recordings From Passengers and Crew

The Discovery Channel will present THE FLIGHT THAT FOUGHT BACK, featuring personal accounts of witnesses and first-time interviews with families and friends of the heroes of Flight 93, on Sunday, September 11, 2005, at 8 PM (ET/PT). The compelling 90-minute special, a combination documentary and dramatization, chronicles the heroism of the 33 passengers and seven crewmembers on United Airlines Flight 93, which was hijacked, re-routed toward Washington, D.C., and crashed in Somerset County, Pa., on September 11, 2001.

[truebrit71]

1. Should read..."....until they were ordered shot down by Dick Cheney"....

....One voice recording we are guaranteed NOT to hear "...Holy shit! Is that a missile?"

[smb]

2. WTF?

Where do you get that?

[gatorboy]

4. Didn't Rumsfeld let it slip not too long ago?

EOM

[Rude Horner]

5. Here's what he said

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/27/rumsfeld.flt93/

<snip>
In the speech, Rumsfeld made a passing reference to United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania after passengers attempted to stop al Qaeda hijackers.

But in his remarks, Rumsfeld referred to the "the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania."
<snip>

If you read "The Terror Timeline", there are eyewitness accounts of fighter jets in the area where the plane went down, while the govt flatly denies it.

Take the red pill, and I'll show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.

[lonestarnot]

31. Yep that redrummy dummy spilled the beans.

[Hobarticus]

6. Came out in the 9/11 Commission hearings:

At 10:39 on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, Vice President Cheney, in a bunker beneath the White House, told Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld in a videoconference that he had been informed earlier that morning that hijacked planes were approaching Washington.

"Pursuant to the president's instructions, I gave authorization for them to be taken out," Cheney told Rumsfeld, who was at the Pentagon. Informing Rumsfeld that the fighter pilots had received orders to fire, Cheney added, "It's my understanding they've already taken a couple of aircraft out.

-snip-

Only later did White House Deputy Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten suggest that Cheney call Bush once more to confirm the engagement order, according to the commission. Logs in Cheney's bunker and on Air Force One confirm conversations at 10:18 and 10:20, respectively.

-snip-

But the commission determined that the Langley fighter jets sent to circle Washington never received the shoot-down order. It was passed down the chain of command, but commanders of the North American Aerospace Defense Command's northeast sector did not give it to the pilots.

"Both the mission commander and the weapons director indicated they did not pass the order to fighters circling Washington and New York City because they were unsure how the pilots would, or should, proceed with this guidance," the commission reported.

"In short," the report added, "while leaders believed the fighters circling above them had been instructed to 'take out' hostile aircraft, the only orders actually conveyed to the Langley pilots were to 'ID type and tail.' "

Unknown to Cheney or Bush, however, by 10:45 other fighter jets would be circling Washington, and these had clear authority to shoot down planes, the commission determined. They were sent from Andrews Air Force Base by the commander of the 113th Wing of the Air National Guard, in consultation with the Secret Service, which relayed instructions that an agent said were from Cheney.

-snip-

That arrangement was "outside the military chain of command," according to the commission report.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50745-2004Jun17.html

Thankfully, the 'shoot anything that freakin' moves' order was delayed.

[Al-CIAda]

3. Official fiction...lie, lie, lie. They must be gettting scared. -nt

[applegrove]

7. Rumsfield was just trying to get you going. Planting a wedge to separate

you from other democrats. Fact is that on that day a Korean airliner, diverted to Vancouver, set off their emergency beaker. Canadian air force ordered them to land in the arctic. And the Prime Minister was online to be available to give the order to shoot the whole plane down if the Korean pilot didn't do exactly as he was told to do. And the fighter jets flew formation around the Jumbo until it hit the ground. This same prime minister who refused to go into Iraq but signed up for Afghanistan.

300 victims vs. thousands in an office tower..no question of what the military would do and they would be right in doing it.

Turns out the emergency beacon going off in the Korean airliner was just a mistake. Plane landed safely and it was all sorted out in the far Canadian North.

But when you claim Cheney shot down that plane you hide the fact there were some very brave people on that plane. Incredibly brave seeing as how they knew that the other planes had attacked other buildings.'"either we get control of this plane or it goes down' 'right here right now'. And they actually said "Are you ready -let's roll".

The passengers were heroes. Don't besmirch them or diminish them just because Rumsfield was toying with you. Surely we are beyond being patsies of that WH. Surely you don't have to 'think' everything they bait you with.

[truebrit71]

8. Um, not really..the fact that the wreckage was spread out over 8 miles

..tells me that the plane was shot down...The people on that plane, brave or not, were blown out of the sky....

[applegrove]

9. If you are at 20,000 feet and the plane looses control and stops being

piloted..it falls apart.

Most of the plane formed a crater when it hit the ground. That would not have been the case if it had been shot out of the sky. It would have fallen apart in the air like the space-shuttle did.

Rummy sat in a briefing and 'vaguely' alluded to the plane being shot down. He has not been working in the WH over 40 years because of his inability to speak clearly.

I saw that and I said "wedgie".

Don't diminish the families of those heroes.

[flyarm]

10. may i suggest you read details about egypt air

first officer was pushing the plane nose down and the captain was pulling the plane up.and the plane finally pulled apart...
understand this the relief first officer was in cockpit while captain was not..and he was pushing the plane straight down and the planes computer kept taking the plane back up..the captain then came back in cockpit and was pulling the plane up when relief first officer was pushing it straight down..

the plane tore apart mid air..

it did not go nose down!! computers on plane would not let it..this was a 767 ..ual 93 was 757 but same computers!!

Egypt Air flight 990

http://www.airsafe.com/flt990.htm

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2002/AAB0201.htm
As with the earlier portion of the accident sequence (before the captain's return to the cockpit), the relief first officer's responses during this portion of the accident sequence did not indicate that he was surprised or disturbed by the events. Similarly, his rate of speech and fundamental frequency when he repeated, "I rely on God," and stated, "It's shut," did not indicate any significant increase in his level of psychological stress. In contrast, the captain's fundamental frequency was about 65 percent higher when he repeatedly asked the relief first officer to "pull with me" during the elevator split period than it was during routine flight, reflecting an increased level of psychological stress.

As previously discussed, simulations showed that even if a failure condition had affected the elevator system, it would have been possible to regain control of the airplane at any time during the recorded portion of the accident sequence and to have restarted the engines and recovered the airplane during the climb after the recorders stopped. However, those simulations assumed that there were no opposing pilot inputs. The captain's failure to recover the airplane can be explained, in part, by the relief first officer's opposing flight control inputs. It is possible that efforts to recover the airplane after the airplane lost electrical power were also complicated by the loss of electronic cockpit displays.

In summary, the evidence establishes that the nose-down elevator movements were not the result of a failure in the elevator control system or any other airplane system but were the result of the relief first officer's manipulation of the airplane controls. The evidence further indicates that the subsequent climb and elevator split were not the result of a mechanical failure but were the result of pilot inputs, including opposing pilot inputs where the relief first officer was commanding nose-down and the captain was commanding nose-up movement. The Safety Board considered possible reasons for the relief first officer's actions; however, the Board did not reach a conclusion regarding the intent of or motivation for his actions.

Summary
The accident airplane's nose-down movements did not result from a failure in the elevator control system or any other airplane failure.
There was no evidence of any failure condition within the elevator system of the accident airplane that would have caused or contributed to the initial pitchover or prevented a successful recovery.

No mechanical failure scenario resulted in airplane movements that matched the flight data recorder data from the accident airplane.

Even assuming that one of the four examined failure scenarios that the investigation evaluated in depth had occurred, the accident airplane would still have been recoverable because of the capabilities of the Boeing 767's redundant elevator system.


The accident airplane's movements during the initial part of the accident sequence were the result of the relief first officer's manipulation of the controls.
At the relief first officer's suggestion, a transfer of control at the first officer's position occurred earlier than normal during the accident flight.

The relief first officer was alone in the cockpit when he manually disconnected the autopilot and moved the throttle levers from cruise to idle; there was no evidence of any airplane system malfunction, conflicting air traffic, or other event that would have prompted these actions.

The nature and degree of the subsequent nose-down elevator movements were not consistent with those that might have resulted from a mechanical failure but could be explained by pilot input.

There was no apparent reason for the relief first officer's nose-down elevator inputs.

The relief first officer's calm repetition of the phrase "I rely on God," beginning about 74 seconds before the airplane's dive began and continuing until just after the captain returned to the cockpit (about 14 seconds into the dive), without any call for help or other audible reaction of surprise or alarm from the relief first officer after the sudden dive is not consistent with the reaction that would be expected from a pilot who is encountering an unexpected or uncommanded flight condition.

The absence of any attempt by the relief first officer to recover from the accident airplane's sudden dive is also inconsistent with his having encountered an unexpected or uncommanded flight condition.

The relief first officer's failure to respond to the command captain's questions ("What's happening? What's happening?") upon the captain's return to the cockpit is also inconsistent with the reaction that would be expected from a pilot who is encountering an uncommanded or undesired flight condition.


The accident airplane's movements after the command captain returned to the cockpit were the result of both pilots' inputs, including opposing elevator inputs where the relief first officer continued to command nose-down and the captain commanded nose-up elevator movements.
Nose-up elevator movements began only after the captain returned to the cockpit.

Testing showed that recovery of the airplane was possible but not accomplished.

Seconds after the nose-up elevator movements began, the elevator surfaces began moving in different directions, with the captain's control column commanding nose-up movement and the relief first officer's control column commanding nose-down movement.

After the elevator split began, the relief first officer shut down the engines.

The captain repeatedly asked the relief first officer to "pull with me," but the relief first officer continued to command nose-down elevator movement.

The captain's actions were consistent with an attempt to recover the accident airplane and the relief first officer's were not.

Probable Cause
The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the EgyptAir flight 990 accident is the airplane's departure from normal cruise flight and subsequent impact with the Atlantic Ocean as a result of the relief first officer's flight control inputs. The reason for the relief first officer's actions was not determined

[applegrove]

11. I'm not going to get into an argument with "your investigation". I'm

sorry but I have to go with the experts on this.

There may have been nobody flying the plane. Terrorists wanted to learn how to stop auto-pilot not how to land the plane.

No credible news source has come out and said that that plane was shot down. They asked. They were told no. It was an option. End of story.

You were not a witness nor are you an investigator. So please - save the expertise for somebody else.

I say again do not diminish the lives of those heroes.

This is like the WMD issue. Where the CIA had an expert who was and engineer to make the case for aluminum tubes being for nuclear processing. That is how bad information gets transferred one person to another. If you were not there and if you are not a qualified expert - why harp on this. There is so much the Bushites have done wrong. If they had decided to shoot down a plane..that would have been bad and sad but not wrong. Any army would have done the same when a planeload is turned into a missile.

Don't waste your energy.

Why not focus on how the Bush's ignored the nuclear physicists and went with a mechanical engineer on evidence leading up to the Iraq war?

There is so much to hold these people accountable for. You must be discerning and pick something that has proof from the experts or obvious reality (like Rummy being incompetent in terms of war planning) and not something that is out of your sphere of knowledge. Only an expert in aviation or a witness could have something to say on this issue over above what has been reported.

[Maiden England]

12. Reality Check on aircraft

from my aircraft mechanic husband....

1. Space shuttle came apart because the shuttle uses the atmosphere as a break to go from 17,000mph orbital speed down to landing speed of about 200 mph (its faster than a regular aircraft and he doesn't know the exact numbers). Anyway, to slow down it presents the most area to the atmosphere to create drag via friction. You can't just 'lose' energy, that kinetic (moving) energy has to go somewhere and via the friction, that energy is converted mostly to heat, some to drag. In the case of the shuttle crash, the intense heat created combined with the defect in the tiles caused a channelling of the superheated atmosphere (which is called plasma) into the airframe, damaging systems and integrity. This combined with the forces on an aircraft decelerating at such high forces, much higher than any aircraft is usually designed for caused the break up of the shuttle.

2. Normal aircraft, do not even exceed the speed of sound which is around 750mph, for flight 93, it was probably going 450-500mph. Even if it was at its cruising altitude of around 35,000 feet and you let go of the controls completely, or accelerated downward, there simply isn't enough kinetic energy to be converted to heat, and the heat is one of the largest contributing factors to why the shuttle broke up. The airframe could come apart if the forces on it exceeded the aircrafts VNE, usually the wings would snap off first. But think about every aircrash you've ever seen. Mechanical failure results in a fairly compact crash site, a mid-air explosion, results in a widespread debris field.

[applegrove]

13. Well you feel you know what happened to other people while you

were not there.

[Rude Horner]

14. Here's a lot of stuff from people that WERE there.

All this comes from the most comprehensive study of 911 out there, the Terror Timeline.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=flight+93&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=+Go+


10:02 a.m.: Cockpit Voice Recording Ends Early? Complete 911 Timeline
The cockpit voice recording of Flight 93 was recorded on a 30-minute reel, which means that the tape is continually overwritten and only the final 30 minutes of any flight would be recorded. The government later permits relatives to hear this tape. Apparently, the version of the tape played to the family members begins at 9:31 a.m. and runs for 31 minutes, ending one minute before, according to the government, the plane crashes. The New York Observer comments, “Some of the relatives are keen to find out why, at the peak of this struggle, the tape suddenly stops recording voices and all that is heard in the last 60 seconds or so is engine noise. Had the tape been tampered with?”


(10:03-10:10 a.m.): Flight 93 Crashes; Seven-Minute Discrepancy on Exact Timing of Crash Complete 911 Timeline
Exactly when Flight 93 crashes remains unclear. According to NORAD, Flight 93 crashes at 10:03 a.m. The 9/11 Commission gives an exact time of 11 seconds after 10:03 a.m. They claim this “time is supported by evidence from the staff's radar analysis, the flight data recorder, NTSB analysis, and infrared satellite data.” They do note that “he precise crash time has been the subject of some dispute.” <9/11 Commission Report, 6/17/04> However, a seismic study authorized by the US Army to determine when the plane crashed concluded that the crash happened at 10:06:05 a.m. The discrepancy is so puzzling that the Philadelphia Daily News publishes an article on the issue, titled “Three-Minute Discrepancy in Tape.” It notes that leading seismologists agree on the 10:06 a.m. time, give or take a couple of seconds. The New York Observer notes that, in addition to the seismology study, “The FAA gives a crash time of 10:07 a.m. In addition, the New York Times, drawing on flight controllers in more than one FAA facility, put the time at 10:10 a.m. Up to a seven-minute discrepancy? In terms of an air disaster, seven minutes is close to an eternity. The way our nation has historically treated any airline tragedy is to pair up recordings from the cockpit and air-traffic control and parse the timeline down to the hundredths of a second. However, as Mary Schiavo points out, ‘We don't have an NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) investigation here, and they ordinarily dissect the timeline to the thousandth of a second.’ ” (Note that this work uses 10:06 a.m. as the most likely time of the crash, detailed below).


(Before 10:06 a.m.): Flight 93 Breaks Up Prior to Crash? Complete 911 Timeline
Flight 93 apparently starts to break up before it crashes, because debris is found very far away from the crash site. The plane is generally obliterated upon landing, except for one half-ton piece of engine found some distance away. Some reports indicate that the engine piece was found over a mile away. The FBI reportedly acknowledges that this piece was found “a considerable distance” from the crash site. Later, the FBI will cordon off a three-mile wide area around the crash, as well as another area six to eight miles from the initial crash site. One story calls what happened to this engine “intriguing, because the heat-seeking, air-to-air Sidewinder missiles aboard an F-16 would likely target one of the Boeing 757's two large engines.” Smaller debris fields are also found two, three, and eight miles away from the main crash site. Eight miles away, local media quote residents speaking of a second plane in the area and burning debris falling from the sky. Residents outside Shanksville 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...” Moments after the crash, Carol Delasko initially thinks someone had blown up a boat on Indian Lake: “It just looked like confetti raining down all over the air above the lake.” Investigators say that far-off wreckage “probably was spread by the cloud created when the plane crashed and dispersed by a ten mph southeasterly wind.” However, much of the wreckage is found sooner than that wind could have carried it, and not always southeast.


(After 10:06 a.m.): Fighter Said to Fly Past Flight 93 Crash Site Complete 911 Timeline

The Flight 93 crater later in the morning. Notice the destruction of the airplane is nearly total.
“Up above, a fighter jet streaks by,” just after Flight 93 crashes, according to ABC News. It isn't clear what evidence this ABC News claim is based on. There are other accounts of a fighter or fighters in the area before the crash, mentioned previously.


(Before 10:06 a.m.): Fighters Trailing Flight 93? Complete 911 Timeline
Shortly after 9/11, NORAD claims that there is a fighter 100 miles away from Flight 93 when it crashes. However, no details, such as who the pilot is, or which base or direction the fighter is coming from, are ever given by NORAD. CBS television reports that two F-16 fighters were tailing the flight and within 60 miles of the plane when it crashed. Shortly after 9/11, an unnamed New England flight controller ignores a ban on controllers speaking to the media, reportedly claiming “that an F-16 fighter closely pursued Flight 93 ... the F-16 made 360-degree turns to remain close to the commercial jet.” He adds that the fighter pilot “must've seen the whole thing.” He reportedly learned this from speaking to controllers nearer to the crash. However, a Cleveland flight controller named Stacey Taylor later claims to have not seen any fighters on radar around the crash. Major General Paul Weaver, director of the Air National Guard, had previously claimed that no military planes were sent after Flight 93. A different explanation by ABC News says, “The closest fighters are two F-16 pilots on a training mission from Selfridge Air National Guard Base” near Detroit, Michigan. These are ordered after Flight 93, even though they reportedly aren't armed with any weapons. It is claimed they are supposed to crash into Flight 93 if they cannot persuade it to land. However, these fighters apparently are not diverted from Michigan until after Flight 93 crashes at 10:06 a.m.


(Before 10:06 a.m.): Witnesses See Flight 93 Flying Erratically and Making Strange Noises Complete 911 Timeline

A map of the countryside near the Flight 93 crash.
Numerous eyewitnesses see and hear Flight 93 just before its crash:
Terry Butler, at Stoystown: He sees the plane come out of the clouds, low to the ground. “It was moving like you wouldn't believe. Next thing I knew it makes a heck of a sharp, right-hand turn.” It banks to the right and appears to be trying to climb to clear one of the ridges, but it continues to turn to the right and then veers behind a ridge. About a second later it crashes.
Ernie Stuhl, the mayor of Shanksville: “I know of two people—I will not mention names— that heard a missile. They both live very close, within a couple of hundred yards ... This one fellow's served in Vietnam and he says he's heard them, and he heard one that day.” He adds that based on what he has learned, F-16s were “very, very close.” Accounts of the plane making strange noises:
Laura Temyer of Hooversville: “I didn't see the plane but I heard the plane's engine. Then I heard a loud thump that echoed off the hills and then I heard the plane's engine. I heard two more loud thumps and didn't hear the plane's engine anymore after that.” (She insists that people she knows in state law enforcement have privately told her the plane was shot down, and that decompression sucked objects from the aircraft, explaining why there was a wide debris field.)
Charles Sturtz, a half-mile from the crash site: The plane is heading southeast and has its engines running. No smoke can be seen. “It was really roaring, you know. Like it was trying to go someplace, I guess.”
Michael Merringer, two miles from the crash site: “I heard the engine gun two different times and then I heard a loud bang...”
Tim Lensbouer, 300 yards away: “I heard it for ten or 15 seconds and it sounded like it was going full bore.” Accounts of the plane flying upside down:
Rob Kimmel, several miles from the crash site: He sees it fly overhead, banking hard to the right. It is 200 feet or less off the ground as it crests a hill to the southeast. “I saw the top of the plane, not the bottom.” Eric Peterson of Lambertsville: He sees a plane flying overhead unusually low. The plane seemed to be turning end-over-end as it dropped out of sight behind a tree line.
Bob Blair of Stoystown: He sees the plane spiraling and flying upside down, not much higher than the treetops, before crashing. Accounts of a sudden plunge and more strange sounds:
An unnamed witness says he hears two loud bangs before watching the plane take a downward turn of nearly 90 degrees.
Tom Fritz, about a quarter-mile from the crash site: He hears a sound that “wasn't quite right” and looks up in the sky. “It dropped all of a sudden, like a stone,” going “so fast that you couldn't even make out what color it was.”
Terry Butler, a few miles north of Lambertsville: “It dropped out of the clouds.” The plane rose slightly, trying to gain altitude, then “it just went flip to the right and then straight down.”
Lee Purbaugh, 300 yards away: “There was an incredibly loud rumbling sound and there it was, right there, right above my head—maybe 50 feet up. ... I saw it rock from side to side then, suddenly, it dipped and dived, nose first, with a huge explosion, into the ground. I knew immediately that no one could possibly have survived.” Upside down and a sudden plunge:
Linda Shepley: She hears a loud bang and sees the plane bank to the side. She sees the plane wobbling right and left, at a low altitude of roughly 2,500 feet, when suddenly the right wing dips straight down, and the plane plunges into the earth. She says she has an unobstructed view of Flight 93's final two minutes.
Kelly Leverknight in Stony Creek Township of Shanksville: “There was no smoke, it just went straight down. I saw the belly of the plane.” It sounds like it is flying low, and it's heading east.
Tim Thornsberg, working in a nearby strip mine: “It came in low over the trees and started wobbling. Then it just rolled over and was flying upside down for a few seconds ... and then it kind of stalled and did a nose dive over the trees.” Some claim that these witness accounts support the idea that Flight 93 is hit by a missile. While this theory certainly can be disputed, it is worth noting that some passenger planes hit by missiles continued to fly erratically for several minutes before crashing. For instance, a Korean Airline 747 was hit by two Russian missiles in 1983, yet continued to fly for two more minutes.



A second plane, described “as a small, white jet with rear engines and no discernible markings,” is seen by at least five witnesses flying low and in erratic patterns, not much above treetop level, over the crash site within minutes of the United flight crashing. Lee Purbaugh: “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.”
Susan Mcelwain: Less than a minute before the Flight 93 crash rocked the countryside, she sees a small white jet with rear engines and no discernible markings swoop low over her minivan near an intersection and disappear over a hilltop, nearly clipping the tops of trees lining the ridge. She later adds, “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. ... But I saw it and it was there before the crash and it was 40 feet above my head. They did not want my story—nobody here did.”
Dennis Decker and/or Rick Chaney, say: “As soon as we looked up , we saw a midsized jet flying low and fast. It appeared to make a loop or part of a circle, and then it turned fast and headed out.” Decker and Chaney described the plane as a Learjet type, with engines mounted near the tail and painted white with no identifying markings. “It was a jet plane, and it had to be flying real close when that 757 went down. If I was the FBI, I'd find out who was driving that plane.”
Jim Brandt sees a small plane with no markings stay about one or two minutes over the crash site before leaving.
Tom Spinelli: “I saw the white plane. It was flying around all over the place like it was looking for something. I saw it before and after the crash.” The FBI later says this was a Fairchild Falcon 20 business jet, directed after the crash to fly from 37,000 feet to 5,000 feet and obtain the coordinates for the crash site to help rescuers. The FBI also says there was a C-130 military cargo aircraft flying at 24,000 feet about 17 miles away, but that plane wasn't armed and had no role in the crash. Note that this is the same C-130 that flies very close to Flight 77 right as that planes crashes into the Pentagon.

(2:00 p.m.): Fighter Pilot Told Flight 93 Was Shot Down Complete 911 Timeline
F-15 fighter pilot Major Daniel Nash returns to base around this time, after chasing Flight 175 and patrolling the skies over New York City. He says that when he gets out of the plane, “he told that a military F-16 had shot down a fourth airliner in Pennsylvania.”

September 16, 2001: Usual Investigative Procedures Not Followed in Examining Flight 93 Wreckage Complete 911 Timeline
A report suggests the crash site of Flight 93 is being searched and recorded in 60 square-foot grids. This approach is preferred by the two forensic scientists in charge of the crash, who say that doing so can help determine who was where when the plane crashed, and possibly how it crashed. However, almost a year later it comes out that this approach is not followed: “The FBI overruled them, instead dividing the site into five large sectors. It would be too time-consuming to mark tight grids, and would serve no real investigative purpose, the bureau decided. There was no mystery to solve about the crash. Everybody knew what happened to the plane.” While the military may suggest there is no mystery, some articles have suggested the plane was shot down. (For example, )In addition, at the time of this decision, investigators were still considering the possibility a bomb might have destroyed the plane.
People and organizations involved: Federal Bureau of Investigation

[applegrove]

15. "It banks to the right and appears to be trying to climb to clear

one of the ridges, but it continues to turn to the right and then veers behind a ridge. About a second later it crashes."

There you have it. it was not blown apart in the sky. It was out of control.

I don't know why you insist on taking statements like this out of context.

Also "there was no smoke".

People "heard a missile?". Of course they did. That was the plane.

Please leave those heroes' families alone and stop your own investigation. Leave that to experts.

[Rude Horner]

16. Oh my

You take ONE line in that WHOLE thing to pick out as your point and I'M TAKING THINGS OUT OF CONTEXT?

What about the people that saw a military aircraft in the area? Did you read about the huge debris field? Did you read about the missing last minute of voice recording? Did you read about the FBI not wanting to investigate the crash properly because "it's a waste of time"? Do you want to explain the engine a mile away? Do you want to explain the shower of debris confetti that was falling on those people 8 miles away? Did you read ANYTHING IN THAT ARTICLE AT ALL?

I gave you paragraphs and paragraphs of multiple people with all sorts of statements that AT THE VERY LEAST deserve a little bit of investigation into what really did happen, and you pick out one sentence.

:banghead:

Oh, and by the way...up above you stated that the plane was at 20,000 feet. It clearly states in the record that it was below 10,000
feet. One of us is quoting articles. The other is just guessing.

Oh, and to say "people heard a missile - of course they did. That was the plane" certainly sounds like YOUR OPINION. And you tell me that I can't give my opinion because I wasn't there? :wtf:

[applegrove]

20. I believe the FAA. I believe the people on that flight were heroes.

They were quoted as saying they were going to fight and they did. Now you have several people quoted in the article saying that there was no smoke and the plane - the majority of it - was banking and then it crashed. Looked like the heroes didn't know how to fly a plane if they got control of it. All I am using is logic. I don't go for anybody elses editorializing. I think for myself.

No smoke. Erratic flying. Need we say more.

Leave those heroes alone.

[redacted]

18. Um, Applegrove, what's your explanation for the engine's being found

so many miles away? How does one explain that?

I can't recall an engine just falling off an aircraft since the DC-10 incident over suburban Chicago in 1979.

[applegrove]

22. Relax. You don't have to convince me of anything. Just don't

start a thread that puts down those families of the heroes and expect me to be silent. A comprehensive investigative document would have been done by experts and would be several hundred pages long. Your treatise is cherry picking. You were not there.

In any investigation it is just the facts mack.

[redacted]

28. Um, AG, I didn't start this thread, I didn't comment about the families,

it isn't my treatise, and I never claimed I was there. And I'm not trying to convince you or anybody else of anything.

I only asked you how one might explain an engine on the ground some ways away from the main crash site. I haven't heard any dispute so far about where that engine ended up, and I think it's a good question. That's all.

[smb]

17. Puh-leeze

But I saw it and it was there before the crash and it was 40 feet above my head.

If a military jet flew "40 feet above my head", it would be there and gone before I saw anything, and my ears would still be ringing like Big Ben.

Maybe it was a UFO. :tinfoilhat:

[Rude Horner]

19. Yeah, the 40 feet thing was the important part of that.

Christ on a crutch, I'm not saying that people got out and fucking measured the damn plane to determine that it was 40 feet away. You make it sound like the FORTY FEET is the important part of that statement! The fact is, it was a LOW military-type aircraft and there are several eyewitnesses. Quite trying to dismiss people's statements because they can't tell the distance between 40 feet and 100 feet or 200 feet, in the heat of the moment.

Maybe instead of accusing me of being a tin foil hatter, you could maybe actually admit that you're just speculating and I'm giving you eyewitness accounts.

[applegrove]

21. Don't you bet there were a few jets scrambled and at supersonic speed

racing to that last rogue jet?

I am tired of this. Are there not more important things to debate like WAR!

[Rude Horner]

23. Hey, I'm just joining in a discussion

I didn't realize that the only topic we could debate on this board was war.

I'm glad that you're tired of it. But you see, I am not. I find that if there's even the MOST REMOTE possibility that I'm being lied to about whether or not a jet was shot down, I want to know about it. In fact, there are A LOT of things about 911 that should be investigated, but you seem to say that since that is ancient history, we should just forget about it.

And that's just what PNAC is hoping for. Suuuuure, just forget it. Look at this shiny war over here. Whhhheeeeeeee!!

[Al-CIAda]

25. Rude Horner

:hi: :thumbsup:

[Rude Horner]

32. Back atch'a

:hi: :thumbsup: :)

[applegrove]

26. I feel that trying to investigate anomalies ourselves without expertise

is wrong. So it ranting on a documentary about the lives of those brave souls on the plane. They may have saved 1000 lives. For sure if they had gotten any closer to Washington or New York (and the jets could catch up) they would have been shot down. I don't believe that happened.

And I take offense when a documentary that might be the most healing thing for the kids of the heroes..and the families & for Americans is put down.

We already know the WH used 9/11 as an opportunity to invade Iraq. That is in the news every day. Not two years ago..but today it is in the papers. We also know that if the plane had been shot down that would have been only to save lives on the ground. Canada was about to do it too on that day.

So what does looking over statements cherry-picked by people who just don't believe the FAA thousands of pages (or do not have access) accomplish? Not much. It starts fights. And it is harmful to the heroes on that day who died or in the case of Iron workers at ground zero got sick or had families fall apart of all the trauma.

Can we not just advertise a documentary and discuss it later? Why is this such a threat? Just because the plane was not shot down by Cheney does not in any way mean that Cheney is not a dangerous Fink responsible for the deaths of many servicemen. A documentary that debunks and goes on witness & audio records is still a documentary. It is an important piece of the puzzle.

I don't understand why it has to be attacked. I learned much from the documentary on CNN the other day. About how creepy the creeps really are. I'm not afraid of more information. I don't understand why some people here are so much afraid that they lash out. I know it takes time to get over trauma. And you go into shock & denial and what people in the world are more deserving of the time and the space to recuperate and start accepting the tragedies (Bush election too) of the last 4 years(well everyone else in the world has equal right to tragedy actually). So recuperate and accepting means accepting that you have freaks in your white house and they used a terrorist attack to their own best interests. They may even have just sat on the bin Laden info in hopes he would attack the USA and give them a way into bombing the middle east. Just because jets didn't shoot down that flight in no way means your arguments against Bush are lessened. Let go. Do some acceptance. Bad people turned your country into a terrorist zone just like the rest of the world. Bad people keep doing used car salesman tricks to get elected President. This documentary and the interesting information doesn't stop those two obvious realities. And it may help to heal.

In fact - believing it was a simple bunch of bad guys in the White House actually is easier to accept. Cause then you don't have to fight with 40 % of your population who are wingnuts. You just have to get rid of the freaks at the top. So you go there. I myself was set up in the workplace by a nefarious type. My first reaction after screaming in fear was to go into denial (oh he is just a bad apple - I'm sure this isn't personal and it will not affect my life forever). Well I was wrong. More than a bad apple - someone I had insulted 7 years earlier by not letting him exploit me and had me on the radar for life deminishment after that. The reality that comes after the shock is a whole lot harder than the initial denial. These nuts in the WH have changed the belief system of many Americans. So you better take the chance to heal and accept that things are a whole lot more endemic than your petty fears about what could have taken place on that day - that day that seemed to rock your world. Your world is a whole lot worse than that. And you better accept all the stories of 9/11 including this documentary so you can heal from that wound and live to fight effectively and with discernment another day. PNAC will not just disappear because Bush gets voted out of office. The country is in so much debt a democratic President in the future may not be able to do anything about the changes to SS or Taxes or regulating industry like it should be. There may never be 'health care' based on shared risk over the generations - it will be experienced rated so that sick people die and rich people live. Really - there is so much more to be afraid of. Get out of this stage of grief as fast as you can so you will be strong and able to help in the 2006 elections without getting into screaming matches with people who happen to watch the documentary and truly believe those Americans on the plane were amazing.


I like my information. And I like it good. I don't want editorializing. Especially not before the documentary has come out.

I saw the title thread and i thought great! All of Rummy & Cheney's patsies will be out on the street listening to Clint Black singing at the freedom meeting and the rest of the USA will be home watching a documentary about American heroes. Excellent timing. I even laughed. Of course it is a solemn moment and TV documentary is the right way to go for America to grieve. You tell the story to each other and you try to find the hope. Nothing wrong with that.

This is an area where you can get some acceptance. And share much with your countrymen than you can on the average day. Take that chance. Because they may be far and few between in the years to come.

[Maiden England]

29. I have no agenda - other than correcting bullshit

I honestly have no position on whether or not 93 was shot down, but when someone starts sprouting technical rubbish about how it broke up in mid-air, just like the space shuttle, someone has to stand up and correct such crap.
You don't get to re-write the laws of physics because it makes your argument sound better. Stick to the truth, it'll do a better service to the victims of flight 93 than spinning bullshit in trying to tell their story.

[applegrove]

30. I didn't say it split up in mid air. That space shuttle mention was a

negative. My point, and perhaps I was not clear, was that if it was not being piloted by a pilot and banking - cracks & some debris would happen. It didn't explode in mid air (like the shuttle) because it was not hit anywhere by a missile.

[lectrobyte]

24. Breaking up in mid air is not totally rare. I remember the NOVA

episode several years back about a 737 at night that had an instrument failure. Pilots thought the plane wasn't staying level, so they kept correcting a non-existent problem and rolled it over into a dive. It broke up before it hit the ground:

6 June 1992; COPA Panama 737-200; near Ticuti, Panama: Aircraft was in cruise when it went into an uncontrolled high speed dive and broke up several thousand feet above the ground. All seven crew members and 40 passengers were killed.


It's not heat, it's strictly aerodynamic and mechanical forces. Try to go too fast, or maneuver too suddenly (remember the Russian SST at the Paris air show that shredded its wings?) and something bad will happen to your airframe.

[applegrove]

27. But in the eyewitness reports there was no fire and the body of

the jet tried to bank and stuff and they were going too fast. So how long had they been banking and don't ya think cracks would appear. I mean two weeks later something fell off of a plane in Queens.

[Rude Horner]

34. Here's the problem

I'm not saying the plane didn't break up on it's own, and I'm not saying that it was definitely hit by a missile. I'm not saying the people on board that plane weren't heroes, and I'm not even saying that it shouldn't have been shot out of the sky if it was deemed a threat. What I am saying is that I have a problem with a government who doesn't investigate the scene properly because "we all know what happened here so let's just clean up the mess and move on".

The experts in this matter are the NTSB, and they recommended investigating the crash scene a certain way and they were overruled by the Pentagon. Seems to me they would want to know exactly what happened - IF THEY HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE. But there are just TOO MANY question marks here that beg to looked into, from the missing last minute of the audio transcript of the flight, to discrepencies in the time of the crash, to eyewitness accounts of other planes in the area when NORAD claimed that the nearest fighter was 60 miles away, etc....

When the government tries to sweep it under the rug - THAT'S what I have a problem with!

The truth is all we want. Nothing more. You seem to think that by looking into the truth, we are somehow dishonoring the men and women of that flight and that's not true.

I'll tell you what I smell. I smell a plane that was in the process of being overtaken by some very brave passengers who were determined to not let that plane make it to it's target. I smell a fighter jet that had no idea what was going on inside that plane, with orders to shoot that plane down. I smell a fighter jet that DID shoot that plane down. I smell a government that heard those tapes of the passengers trying to overtake control of that plane and knew that the American public would just LOVE to hear the story of these heroes, but at the same time knew damn well that it would look pretty bad to admit that we shot those heroes out of the sky, even if the flight was doomed anyway.

Is that speculation? Yup, you bet. A proper investigation into that crash site could have cleared up all the questions - unfortunately, the Pentagon nixed that. And you have to wonder why.

[applegrove]

35. I just find it sad that a documentary that could be healing for more

than just the immediate victims is put down. There will be info in the documentary too. We can all take the facts in that serious piece of work and learn a thing or two. I think it is a much better thing for America to do on 9/11 than going to a freedom party.

If there was a missile - there would have been smoke. The jets do not send a missile that just passes through the 'enemy' like bullets. Missiles explode.

And Rummy is such a smart speaker that the takes over most press conferences and asks himself questions and then answers them in a rapid fire manner. What I hate most about the Bush WH is how they divide by stirring the pot and playing on the different levels of fear their opposition has towards them. What would sound like a mistake to a moderate ... sounds like the truth slipping out to someone who really would not put anything past the Bush White House. Same with Diebold. It is a wedgie.

None of us can ignore our fears. Fear rises to the top of our emotions like a rocket. I hate that many people will see the documentary and go "that's what I need - true heroes unfettered by WH myths" while others go "lies, lies, lies!". We are looking at the same information and we are on different islands with different belief systems. That is how they divide and conquer.

As much as I hate responding to these posts (and in this case I was honestly thinking what a great thing the documentary would be in terms of healing as I saw the thread) I feel it is important that we do not forget that we process information differently depending on how afraid we are of the monsters. And I feel I need to remind that this is something that is also going on and a product of hard work on the part of the WH.

[Junkdrawer]

33. Let's see: pResident's polls are down - support for the war evaporating...

Hey, the 9-11 anniversary is coming up... :think:

Time for 9-11 Hero-fest 2005!!!