FACEBOOK
TWITTER
9/11 Unveiled (part 8 of 10): Flight 93
by Enver Masud
There’s no hard evidence that Flight 93 ploughed into the ground at the Pennsylvania ‘crash site.’
Rare television footage from September 11, 2001 contradicts the generally accepted explanation that United Airlines Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania at 10:03 a.m., 125 miles from Washington, DC, after four passengers attacked the hijackers in an attempt to gain control of the airplane.
According to The 9/11 Commission Report, at 8:42 United Airlines Flight 93 took off from Newark, NJ, bound for San Francisco. It’s last “normal contact” with the FAA was at 9:27.
Around 9:28 the Cleveland, OH, controller heard “a radio transmission of unintelligible sounds of possible screaming or a struggle from an unknown origin.”
Other transmissions followed, and at 9:30 Ziad Jarrah, the alleged hijacker—a fragment of whose passport was found at the crash site—(CNN, August 1, 2002), was heard saying, “There is a bomb on board and are going back to the airport, and to have our demands [unintelligible]. Please remain quiet.”
“The FBI believes Jarrah, a Lebanese national, was at the controls of United Airlines Flight 93, . . . U.S. officials believe the plane’s target was the White House.”
CNN adds that Jarrah “was stopped and questioned in the United Arab Emirates in January 2001 at the request of the CIA, nearly nine months before the attacks”.
At 10:01 another aircraft is reported to have witnessed “radical gyrations in what investigators believe was the hijackers’ effort to defeat the passenger assault.”
However, television footage from September 11, 2001 tells a different story.
NBC Reporter: “The debris here is spread over a 3 to 4 mile radius which has now been completely sealed off, and is being treated according to the FBI as a crime scene. This is one of those cases where the pictures really do tell the story . . . one of the most horrifying aspects of this is how little debris is visible . . . that’s all you see, just a large crater in the ground, and just tiny, tiny bits of debris . . . the investigators out there, and there are hundreds of them, have found nothing larger than a phone book.”
A Fox News reporter is heard talking to a Fox affiliate photographer Chris Kanicki [sic].
Fox Reporter: “I’ve seen the pictures, and it looks like there’s nothing there except a hole in the ground.”
Chris : “Basically that is right . . . The only thing you could see was a big gouge in the earth, and some broken trees . . .”
Fox Reporter: “Any large pieces of debris?”Chris: “There was nothing that you could distinguish that a plane crashed there . . . nothing going on down there, no smoke, no fire . . .you couldn’t see anything, you could see dirt, ash, and people walking around.”
Fox Reporter: “How big would you say that hole was?”
Chris: “From my estimate it was 20 to 15 feet long . . . 10 feet wide.”
Fox Reporter: “What could you see on the ground other than dirt, ash?”
Chris: “You couldn’t see anything . . . just dirt, ash, and people walking around.”
Both NBC and Fox reporters make no mention of the Boeing 757’s fuselage, tail, landing gear, and engines which would have been found at the “crash site” had the plane plunged to the ground while the “pilot struggled with hijackers.”
Elias Davidsson, a researcher in Iceland, reveals anomalies that cast doubt on the authenticity of the transcript from Flight 93’s Cockpit Voice Recorder. He writes (The Events of September 11, 2001 and the Right to the Truth, April 14, 2008, p16):
The transcripts of CVRs from other crashes around the world . . . mention numerous engine and ambient sounds . . . The transcript of Flight UA 93’s CVR does not mention any such sounds and particularly no crash sound at the end . . . the released transcript differed significantly from authentic CVR transcripts by failing to mention the aircraft’s ID, the name of the person and agency who issued the transcript and the date the transcript was issued. Furthermore, serious discrepancies have been revealed between what family members heard when the transcript was first played to them by the FBI on April 2, 2002, and what the 9/11 Commission reported to have heard.
Popular accounts of Flight 93 mention several phone calls describing the passengers’ struggle with the hijackers, but this is contradicted by the FBI.
According to an FBI report presented as evidence in the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui in 2006, Griffin writes (Canadian, October 8, 2007):
there were only two cell phone calls from United 93, and they were made at 9:58, shortly before the plane crashed, when it was down to 5,000 feet. . . . (These two low-altitude calls from Flight 93 were, according to the FBI report, the only two cell phone calls made from all four flights).
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, during a Christmas Eve address to U.S. troops in Baghdad, said “the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania.”
The Pentagon says Rumsfeld “simply misspoke.”
There’s also the statement by Lee Hamilton, Vice Chairman of the 9/11 Commission.
While questioning Norman Y. Mineta, Former Secretary of Transportation, Mr. Hamilton asked Mineta about an “order given, I think by the President, that authorized the shooting down of commercial aircraft that were suspected to be controlled by terrorists.”
The video of Mineta’s testimony before the 9/11 Commission has been removed from the archives of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, but links to a copy may be found at The Wisdom Fund’s website (twf.org).
Vice President Cheney admitted to giving the order to shoot hijacked aircraft.
Philip Shenon, an investigative reporter at the New York Times where he has worked since 1981, in The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation (Twelve, 2008, p264), narrates this exchange between Cheney and Tim Russert (Meet the Press, April 4, 2004):
Russert asked Cheney what was the most difficult decision made during the course of the day [September 11, 2001].
“Well, I suppose the toughest decision was this question of whether or not we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft,” Cheney said, referring to the decision to order military jets to shoot down passenger planes that approached Washington.
Russert asked: “And you decided . . .”
Cheney corrected Russert. “We decided to do it.” He was referring to himself and Bush.
“So if the United States government became aware that a hijacked commercial airliner was was destined for the White House or the Capitol, we would take the plane down?” Russert continued.
“Yes,” Cheney said somberly.
There is yet another twist to the saga of Flight 93.
ABC affiliate WCPO in Cleveland reported:
A Boeing 767 out of Boston made an emergency landing Tuesday at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport due to concerns that it may have a bomb aboard, said Mayor Michael R. White. . . . United identified the plane as Flight 93.
However, in February 2006, Liz Foreman, whose name was attached to the original story, stated that
an Associated Press bulletin, was posted on WCPO.com during the morning of September 11, 2001. The story stated that Flight 93 landed in Cleveland. This was not true. Once the AP issued a retraction a few minutes later, we removed the link.
On April 28, 2009, Pilots for 9/11 Truth reported that Air Traffic Control radar shows Flight 93 airborne after its reported crash.
Short URL: http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=137908
Posted by Enver Masud on Sep 6 2011, With 0 Reads, Filed under 9/11. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
COMMENTS
To post, we ask that you login using Facebook, Yahoo, AOL, or Hotmail in the box below.Don't have a social network account? Register and Login direct with VT and post.
Before you post, read our Comment Policy - Feedback
Too many mysteries.
No, too many lying scum bags.
To Whom it may concern:
Note: That so-call “Hole” , that appears to look like a “Plane”, was always Geographically there…!
The one Witness that said he saw the Plane & also stated the “FBI” was on the scene within ( 5 ) Minutes, was clearly lying. ( He was well Paid OFF ) FOR HIS SERVICES…..!
No Wreckage of any kind, No Bodies or Blood, No Luggage, No Jet Engines, But they managed to find a “Passport” of one of the Terrorist’s.
Give Me A Break…….!
9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB…..!
Chris
9/11 had the shoddiest group of phony witnesses of any crime in history
the Pentagon gang were pure chucklers
g
The two question that continue to linger on my mind are how many people where on board and what did they do with them? Did the plane just disintegrate mid air after being shot down? Maybe they shot down a weather balloon.
I was wathcing a program on National Geographic and it said that an air traffic controller called the Otis military base directly, rather than going through a chain of command, and this got the F15 flighter jets into the air faster than was to be expected. I am sure that Flight 93 was supposed to hit Building 7 because it was already rigged with explosives to bring it down, but it needed the plane attack to complete the illusion. Flight 93 was shot down.
The program made the point that NORAD was doing a military training exercise which caused confusion and slowed down the military’s rate of response. The program did not mention that Dick Cheney was in charge of NORAD at the time.
Louise, your question occurs to me, too, whether UA93 was intended to hit WTC7 and was shot down with enough force to literally disintegrate it, as planned, in the event any of the remote control systems on the three aircraft destined for the three Trade Center buildings failed. I cannot imagine any other explanation, either, considering WTC7 was clearly rigged with cutter charges and who knows what else in its sub-basements in the same manner as the Twin Towers. The fact that WTC7 was “pulled” at 5:20 p.m., so late in the day, suggests the chain of command for the attack may have broken down for critical hours, leaving the few at the top of the operation unable to communicate the “pull” order with their lieutenants and demo operatives on the ground in NYC, or possibly, that there was some hope the operatives could impede a fire marshall’s investigation of the WTC7 structure long enough to un-rig the building, and when the risk was determined to be too great, gave the order to “pull it” seven hours later. Also, UA93 would obviously have had to be fully disintegrated since the ultimate crash of an empty, out-of-control plane and examination of the wreckage would expose the whole thing. One problem with all of this, off the top of my head, is how the attackers could be so confident the planes would hit their targets, facing the extraordinary risk that one or more of the buildings would be left standing there rigged for demo without the cover of a crash. Do you have any thoughts on this?
Well the evidence and eyewitness testimony indicates the plane was shot down, yes I know some people who post in VT comment sections don’t believe in evidence and eyewitness testimony regarding 911, they only believe in science.
A theory, I believed offered by Smitty, is the Sears Tower was the original target of flight 93 and perhaps due to a long take off delay of the plane intended to hit building 7 the Sears Tower plane changed it flight path and was heading to building 7. I have not checked the flight paths to see if that makes sense. If he’s right and it’s just a theory of his, then perhaps the Sears Tower, now called the Willis Tower is still wired with explosives.Yikes!
Since building 7 was obviously controlled demolition you would think the Mossad intended to smack it with a remote controlled plane in order to blame the hapless Muslim patsies.
If the Mossad did wire up the Sears Tower perhaps the Mossad removed the explosives but I doubt it.
No doubt there was a plane intended for WTC7, the collapse of that building is such blatant evidence of the official story being lies that it cannot have formed part of the plan that it would collapse without a plane strike. It had to go down though because it contained info and infrastructure used for the attacks,
It is possible that elements within the US military who had either not received stand-down orders, or chose to ignore them, shot down that aircraft.
Believe in none of what you hear and half of what you see.
It seems reasonable to assume that the flight controllers (computers) on all four airliners had been reprogrammed with a date sensitive “worm” or a “virus”. This virus or worm, which contained a new flight path would have become active on 9/11, and was most likely triggered when the planes reached a certain altitude, or when the pilot performed some routine task early in the flight. Once the worm became activated it would have turned off all communications equipmnt (including the radio and transponder) and taken control of the plane from the pilot. It seems logical to assume that all four buildings, (which had gone through recent major repairs and renovations) would have had homing beacons or transmitters installed (like those at the end of airport runways) to guide the planes to the buildings with absolute accuracy. It is my assumption that 3 out of the 4 planes performed exactly as they were supposed to, but that for some reason Flight 93 experienced a some type of failure which prevented it from completing it’s flight toward Building #7. Once it became obvious that Flight 93 was not going to hit Building #7 the decision would have been made to shoot the plane down, rather than run the risk of it landing intact and being inspected by personnel not in on the conspiracy. Since Building #7 had already been wired for demolition, there was no choice except to “pull it”.
Here is the explanation to iron out the anomalies mentioned in the above article. The Shanksville plane was not UA-93 but a substitute to which specific passengers were transferred. UA-93 then took off and was, indeed airborne following the explosion of its substitute. Other anomalies also handled at http://bigeye.com/911hoax.htm
All these scumbags in our govt need to be tried and executed.