To the right is a picture
that was taken instantly after the crash of UA 93 in Stony
Creek. It is remarkable that the mushrooming cloud of smoke
looks exactly like what you expect of a air-ground-missile,
or a dropped bomb (compare with the picture from the Bosnia
Airstrike).
It looks not at all like the black, fat walls
of smoke that emerge from an exploding aircraft (see pictures
from the WTC and from the crash in Queens, NY).
If the plane crashed there and was totally
obliterated, it sure must have exploded on impact - but why
did it produce a cloud of smoke like that, and left a crater
like that left by a missile or bomb instead of behaving like
any other airplane?
This are some pictures from other aircraft-crashes
- you can usually see a lot of debris including large parts
of the hull, even at aircraft collisions, crashes from high
altitudes, or explosions.
There are no craters that look like bomb-craters
here.
|
This picture was taken when flight UA 93 crashed in Stony
Creek
This is a picture from an airstrike in Bosnia.
Flight American Airlines 587 crashing in Queens on 12 November
2001. For further reference see the pictures of the burning
WTC.
|
Rumsfeld 'misspeaks' about flight UA 93
In an interview, Rumsfeld said:
"I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind
of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall
in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the
people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down
the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon, the
people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate,
to frighten – indeed the word 'terrorized' is just that.
Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people
be something other than that which they want to be."
Later the Pentagon insisted he just misspoke
.... somehow this seems to make Scenario
3 more likely again ... how could anybody 'misspeak' like
that when all the reports about this flight are the truth
as far as he knows it?
But he is not the first one to 'misspeak'
about this flight - see article to the right.
CNN
World
Net Daily |
Several eyewitnesses to the crash claim they saw a "military-type"
plane flying around United Airlines Flight 93 when the hijacked
passenger jet crashed – prompting the once-unthinkable
question of whether the U.S. military shot down the plane.
Although the onboard struggle between hijackers and passengers
– immortalized by the courageous "Let's roll"
call to action by Todd Beamer – became one of the enduring
memories of that disastrous day, the actual cause of Flight
93's crash, of the four hijacked airliners, remains the most
unclear.
Several residents in and around Shanksville, Pa., describing
the crash as they saw it, claim to have seen a second plane
– an unmarked military-style jet.
Well-founded uncertainty as to just what happened to Flight
93 is nothing new. Just three days after the worst terrorist
attack in American history, on Sept. 14, 2001, The (Bergen
County, N.J.) Record newspaper reported that five eyewitnesses
reported seeing a second plane at the Flight 93 crash site.
That same day, reported the Record, FBI Special Agent William
Crowley said investigators could not rule out that a second
plane was nearby during the crash. He later said he
had misspoken, dismissing rumors that a U.S. military
jet had intercepted the plane before it could strike a target
in Washington, D.C.
Although government officials insist there was never any
pursuit of Flight 93, they were informed the flight was suspected
of having been hijacked at 9:16 am, fully 50 minutes before
the plane came down.
On the Sept. 16, 2001, edition of NBC's "Meet the Press,"
Vice President Dick Cheney, while not addressing Flight 93
specifically, spoke clearly to the administration's clear
policy regarding shooting down hijacked jets.
Vice President Cheney: "Well, the – I suppose
the toughest decision was this question of whether or not
we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft."
NBC's Tim Russert: "And you decided?"
Cheney: "We decided to do it. We'd, in effect, put a
flying combat air patrol up over the city; F-16s with an AWACS,
which is an airborne radar system, and tanker support so they
could stay up a long time ...
"It doesn't do any good to put up a combat air patrol
if you don't give them instructions to act, if, in fact, they
feel it's appropriate."
Russert: "So if the United States government became
aware that a hijacked commercial airline[r] was destined for
the White House or the Capitol, we would take the plane down?"
Cheney: "Yes. The president made the decision ... that
if the plane would not divert ... as a last resort, our pilots
were authorized to take them out. Now, people say, you know,
that's a horrendous decision to make. Well, it is. You've
got an airplane full of American citizens, civilians, captured
by ... terrorists, headed and are you going to, in fact, shoot
it down, obviously, and kill all those Americans on board?
"... It's a presidential-level decision, and the president
made, I think, exactly the right call in this case, to say,
I wished we'd had combat air patrol up over New York.'"
|
![[Free DeskMates]](http://www.oska.com/images/tahni006.gif)
