Very Distrurbing

[Joles]

Dear All ( Esp Moderator)

I was looking for a site to tell me of the flight coridor over Chennai ( Madras City - MAA - India ) when I stumbled upon this site

http://www.flight93crash.com/

I have no idea if its true or not, but the way the story has been stringed together and the way the author has put forth the arguments would convince the staunchest jury.
Your opinions and comments friends

Regards
Joles

[ETOPS773]

Sure seems plausible.

[jethro15]

One thing that struck me about the events of Sep 11th, was the fact that here in the UK, the incidents at the WTC and Pentagon received full coverage. However, in the following days after the event, very little was mentioned re UA93. Was that the same in the US??

jethro15

[ATC Watcher]

I had hear similar story ( that it was shot down by 2 F16s ) among US ATC a few days after , but then the heroes story broke out, apparently confirmed by the recording and timig of Cell phones calls from pax. Now W and its admin has invited the widow(s) in the white house, congress, etc.. so it will be difficult to admit anything else now I guess.

Nevertheless, one way or the other the pax and crew were doomed. If you were in charge of Air Defence on the morning of Sept 11 would you have hesitated a second to give the go ahead to shoot down UA93 ?
Taking away the heroes image of people who really tried to take over the flight will not bring them back either.
I liked the newsweek story. .wheteher a hijacker or a F16 brought down UA93, it is good it did where it did and not over Washington DC.

[Hilico]

Given what had happened to the first three aircraft, it would not surprise me to learn that it actually was shot down. My condolences are extended to the passengers and crew, and very definitely the F-16 pilots and their commander; it cannot have been (and still cannot be) an easy decision for any of them.

[Lance Murdoch]

I was in North America on September 11th 2001. I clearly remember that it was initially reported that an airliner had been shot down, however, the story was quickly changed to the official version of events i.e. the passengers over-powered the hijackers and the plane went out of control and crashed.

I think both things happened, suppose that the passengers had regained control of the aircraft, how would the military have known this? Even assuming one of the passengers could fly the aircraft and operate the radio would the military really believe that this was the case? remember, at the time, no one could afford to take any chances, the Pentagon and WTC had already been hit.

It is unlikely that the US government are going to admit that they shot down an airliner for obvious reasons.

[PaperTiger]

The aftermath of UA93 recieved saturation coverage in the US media. Various conspiracy/coverup theories were advanced (many are still on the web), but the general opinion seemed to settle on the 'heroes' story. Whether this is due to successful 'spin' or not, I can't say.

But the question that was never asked was if UA93 wasn't shot down, why the hell not ?. The government looks bad either way - killing the passengers or demonstrating a stunning failure of the air defences. For that reason the case is closed as far as the authorities are concerned and it will be a long time before the full story is known, if ever. Assuming somebody knows the full story, confusion was rife that terrible day.

[Ignition Override]

Off the topic of the United plane, but a stolen small aircraft was shot down over the western state of Idaho soon after 9/11. We were in Great Falls, Montana for a fairly short stop after leaving Kalispell, and the First Officer and I wondered about the Sidewinder missiles (real or training versions?), which were then on the wingtips of the Air Guard F-16 fighters in their alert shelters, which we taxied past. It was interesting to me that the FO ( a retired air Force Colonel) already knew about the mysterious tragedy, before we even landed......

As the FO waited on the sizzling buffalo burgers for our FAs, I asked either the Clnc Delivery Controller or the Ground Controller about the incident. He confirmed that it happened, and I decided to not check further into the subject over the radio, and I've never heard or read about this incident anywhere, but apparently the plane was stolen, whether for drugs or not, possibly heading towards or in the general area of a (nuclear?) power plant. My partner did not know whether missiles or cannon were used to destroy the plane. If anyone out there has de-classified, valid info, please post it.

What almost happened around 9/11 in Alaska to a "Pacific Rim" airliner with passengers onboard is also quite disturbing, unless the story is false. :(

[ATC Watcher]

Yes I.O. , I was told the facts by a seattle center Controller and it was very, very close indeed. That was definitively over reaction as everyone had radio contact with him and knew the problem was fuel... But again, on the day itself, people reacted differently..

[zerozero]

This story was covered pretty well by the local press. You can research www.adn.com for more info.

My understanding is that the airliner was inbound to PANC and there was some confusion over the squawk code.

Having personally listened to some real confusing exchanges over requested flight levels or frequency changes this wouldn't surprise me very much.

Shooting it down would've been tragic. Meanwhile Anchorage International and the downtown area were evacuated.

An over-reaction? I don't know.

I think the concern for fuel was due to the diversion to Whitehorse, YT, Canada.

UAL93 was simply tragic no matter what happened.
Peace.

[AA717driver]

I don't think UA93 was shot down for the simple reason that there were no "armed" aircraft around to do it.

I've seen interviews with a couple of guys from the DC guard who were preparing to fly a training mission that morning. They got scrambled with no missles and only "ball" training ammo. The emphasized that they were discussing the feasibility of ramming any "threat" aircraft since the likelyhood of shooting it down was remote.

I don't think anyone has pulled alert duty since the fall of the USSR and ANG airplanes simply aren't armed with real missles or ammo on a normal basis prior to 9/11.

Besides, what is the closest ANG unit to the 93 crash site? BUF, SYR, TOL, ACY?TC

[McD]

Here are a couple of websites which can help explain the "armed" vs "unarmed" F-16 situation, and also give some insight as to how the day unfolded for the pilots who were scrambled (i.e., tasked to launch immediately).

In this first link, the section that begins "Down to Seven Bases" discusses the mission of Air National Guard (ANG) aircraft assigned to NORAD. As you can see from the article, this NORAD mission, readiness state, etc. is different from normal training missions on which other fighters were operating that day. http://www.afa.org/magazine/Feb2002/0202norad_print.html

The next link takes you to an article which was originally from Aviation Week & Space Technology, and gives details about the aircraft, some of the pilots' perspectives, and the orders which came down the chain of command. http://billstclair.com/911timeline/2002/aviationweekspacetechnology090902.html

As a former F-16 pilot and Chief of Alert at a NORAD-assigned ANG unit, I can verify that (a few minor editorial misnomers notwithstanding), both articles have credibility and legitimacy.

My personal opinion? I believe AA717driver mostly has it right in his first sentence: "there were no armed aircraft around to do it." There were armed aircraft, and all fighters eventually were authorized to use force, but none with armament ever got close enough to Flight 93 to be a factor. Just my 2p/2c worth, but it's by far the most logical answer in my view.

[PlaneTruth]

"It is unlikely that the US government are going to admit that they shot down an airliner for obvious reasons."

Anyone remember the 130 stolen out of Mildenhall by the despondent enlisted crewmember in the late '60's? The guy got about and hour west of England and decided his airmanship wasn't up to a transatlantic hop on his first solo flight. The British Air Marshal declared, "He will not land that aircraft on British soil." F-4's were scrambled out of Lakenheath and they shot him down.

I worked with a pilot who was a crew chief at the time with this guy --and I married the daughter of the Mildenhall Fire Chief at the time. (He was scared to death the guy would crash on base!)

Not sure if that one made the London Times.

PT
:ok:

[pigboat]

It's my understanding that all the wreckage of UA93 was accounted for at the crash site. That wouldn't be the case if the aircraft had been shot down.

[Cyclic Hotline]

Here is the contemporary story on this incident.

Right here on PPRuNe (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3114&highlight=korean)

[I. M. Esperto]

Problem with FLT 77, too.

No Arabs aboard.

http://rense.com/general38/77.htm



STILL No Arabs On Flight 77
By Thomas R. Olmsted, MD
6-23-3


I am an ex-Naval line officer and a psychiatrist in private practice in New Orleans, a Christian and home school dad. It troubled me that we rushed to war on the flimsiest of evidence. I considered various ways to provide a smoking gun as to who perpetrated Sept 11th.

Astute observers noticed right away that there were no Arabic sounding names on any of the flight manifests of the planes that "crashed" Sept 11. A list of names on a piece of paper is not evidence, but an autopsy by a pathologist is.

I undertook by FOIA request, to obtain that autopsy list of the people on Flight 77, which hit the Pentagon. You are invited to view it below. Guess what? Still no Arabs on the list. In my opinion, the monsters who planned this crime made a mistake by not including Arabic names on the original list to make the ruse seem more believable.

When airline disasters occur, airlines will routinely provide a manifest list for anxious families. You may have noticed that even before Sep 11th, airlines were pretty meticulous about getting an accurate headcount before takeoff. It seems very unlikely to me that FIVE Arabs sneaked onto a flight with weapons.

This is the list provided by American of the 56 passengers:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html

On September 27th, the FBI published photos of the "hijackers" of Flight 77:

http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/penttbom/aa77/77.htm

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP), does a miraculous job and identified nearly all the bodies on November 16th 2001.

The AFIP suggest these numbers:189 killed, 125 worked at the Pentagon and 64 were "passengers" on the plane. The AA list only had 56 and the list just obtained has 58. They did not explain how they were able to tell "victims" bodies from "hijacker" bodies. In fact, from the beginning NO explanation has been given for the extra five suggested in news reports except that the FBI showed us the pictures to make up the difference, and that makes it so.

Now, being the trusting sort, I figured that the government would want to quickly dispel any rumors so we could get on with the chore of kicking Osama/Sadaam's butt (weren't these originally two different people?). It seemed simple to me. . .produce the names of all the bodies identified by the AFIP and compare it with the publicized list of passengers. So, I sent a FOIA request to the AFIP and asked for an expedited response. Fourteen months later, a few US soldiers dead, many Iraqi civilians pushing up daisies, and I finally get the list. Believe me that they weren't a bit happy to give it up, and I really have no idea why they choose now to release it.

No Arabs wound up on the morgue slab. However, three ADDITIONAL people not listed by American Airline sneaked in. I have seen no explanation for these extras. I did give American the opportunity to "revise" their original list, but they have not responded.

The new names are: Robert Ploger, Zandra Ploger, and Sandra Teague. The AFIP claims that the only "passenger" body that they were not able to identify is the toddler, Dana Falkenberg, whose parents and young sister are on the list of those identified.

The satanic masterminds behind this caper may be feeling pretty smug about the perfect crime, but they have left a raft of clues tying these unfortunates together. Stay tuned for part two for a much closer look of the cast of characters on this ill-fated flight.

Autopsy List Flight 77 (below)

ambrose, paul
betruyen, eneh
booth, mary jane
brown, bernard
burlingame,charles
calley, suzanne
caswell, william
charlebois, david
clark, sarah
cotto, masia
debeuneure, james
dickens, rodney
dillar, deddie
droz, chuck
edwards, barbara
falkenberg,charles
falkenberg, zoe
ferguson, james
flagg, darlene
flagg,wilson
gabriel, richard
grayian, hallstanley
heidenberger, michelle
jack, bryan
jacoby, steven
judge, ann
keller, chandler
kennedy, yvonne
khan, norma
kincaid, karen
lee, dong
lewis, jennifer
lewis, kenneth
may, renee
mencha, cadora
newton, christopher
olson, barbara
ornedo, ruben
penninger, robert
ploger, robert
ploger, zandra
raines, lisa
reuben, todd
sammartino, john
simmons, diane
simmons, george
sopper, mari-rae
speisman, robert
steuerle, norma
taylor, hilda
taylor, leonard
teagues, andra
whittington, leslie
yamnicky, john
yancey, vicki
yangs, huyin
zheng, yuguag


Disclaimer

[Lance Murdoch]

Planetruth,

I did not know about the 130 incident at Mildenhall in the 1960's, a few years before my time. I am sure that the British (or indeed any) government would be unlikely to admit that they had shot down an airliner.

Whatever happened to UA93 may never be known. The US government really were in a no win situation as they had one of two choices:-

1- Leave the aircraft and allow it to hit its target probably killing hundreds or thousands on the ground aswell as its passengers

or

2- Stop the aircraft reaching its target, which in practicality means shooting it down.

Personally I do not envy the person who had to make the decision.

[PaperTiger]

I did not know about the 130 incident at Mildenhall in the 1960's, a few years before my time. I am sure that the British (or indeed any) government would be unlikely to admit that they had shot down an airliner.Well a USAF C-130 isn't really an airliner, and if it was shot down it was done by the USAF.

Was discussed on the Hercules Board (http://pub33.ezboard.com/fc130herculesheadquartersfrm4.showMessage?topicID=49.topic) a while back.

[PlaneTruth]

Lance,

I work with a couple guys who are Guard "Pukes" that were on duty on 9-11. The stories are amazing.

Their F-16 unit is in the northeast somewhere close to NYC and this guys was just firing up his motor when the word came in. They shut down only to get word to get "everything they had into the air ASAP." One guy coming back in was told to climb back to a loiter altitude until he bingoed. They launched three planes, one a hot turn with no armament and two others with missiles. They assumed the missiles would be for a foreign aircraft. They were stunned to hear they were for American airliners. The one guy with no armament got briefied over the radio and made plans to eject just prior to ramming the airliner with his fighter.

Amazing stuff.


PT