Do you think Flight 93 was shot down?

[Twist_U_Up]

In wake of the recent movie and since 9-11-2001 do you think Flight 93 was shot down?

[leveymg]

1. Maybe those who believe there was no shoot-down can explain how

the starboard engine landed a mile from the main crater, and wreckage indicating penetration of the cabin was found seven miles from impact?

[readmoreoften]

2. K /nt

[Ediacara]

5. I don't know what happened

But according to the transcripts made available a few weeks ago, when the passengers tried to storm the cockpit, the hijackers were really freaked out. They considered using the fire axe in the cockpit to attack them, but decided against it. They apparently starting moving the stick violently up and down in an effort to make the passengers fall down and roll away from the cockpit door. If this was done, it could lead to a partial disintegration of the plane in flight prior to crashing (757s are not known for their aerobatic abilities). I should also point out that the transcripts indicate no one really knew how to fly. Most of the recording consists of them asking each other things like, "How do I do that?", "What's this button?", "What do you mean?" and other things that seem to indicate they were very unfamiliar with flying.

This is of course a moot point if you believe the cockpit voice recorders are fakes.

[Mr_Spock]

10. Hey did you lose your tinfoil hat while you were out jogging today?

Common sense doesn't apply when it comes to these theories! :sarcasm:

[Kingshakabobo]

11. Add to that: The engines are connected with sheer bolts that would...

hasten the separation of the engines during extremely violent maneuvers. The theory is: better to have an engine come off than a wing.

[leveymg]

15. Would you like to tell us the G-rating at which those bolts would sheer?

As early as 1961, Boeing 700 series did barrel-rolls, and there was no separation. You're going to have be very specific about your sources to be convincing that low-altitude manuevering caused that engine to detach.

How do you explain the rest of the wreckage that was spewn for miles along the final flight path? Detachment of the engine wouldn't cause that. A Sidewinder or 20 mm cannon burst would.

[Kingshakabobo]

17. Here is some info.

I don't know what sort of barrel roll test you are referring to but I'll bet they weren't done @4-500 miles per hour.

The articles quoted below are discussing the absence of "fuse pins" in the A300 and the Long island crash.

Yes, Boeing uses fuse pins. Most of my sources are in my head from 20 plus years of being a private pilot and hanging around with, and being instructed by, airline pilots but here are some quotes:


After the engine separations of the early ‘90’s, there was much study of the two contrasting concepts. Here’s the _Seattle Times_, Jan 9 ’93, pg A9, headline "AIRBUS AVOIDED USE OF ILL-FATED FUSE PINS / ENGINES DESIGNED TO STAY ATTACHED TO JETS’ WINGS DURING EMERGENCIES", quote from the story by Achohido:

"Airbus Industrie … does not use breakaway safety bolts, called fuse pins, to mount jet engines to the wings … Instead, when Airbus engineers began designing jetliners for the first time in the early 1970’s, they ruled out fuse pins in favor of permanently attaching the engines and its supporting structure, called a strut, to the wing.

"’We have no fuse pins,’ said a high-ranking Airbus engineer. ‘In other words, we have designed it so that … will stay attached to the wings in all circumstances.’

"That difference points up a potential hazard posed by fuse pins used on jetliners built by The Boeing Company.

"Designed to snap and release an engine … fuse pins used on more than 930 Boeing 747 jumbo jets … susceptible to corrosion and cracking … used on more than 480 757 twinjets can develop fatigue cracks….

"’… rules require the fuel tanks … and wing to remain intact to avoid the risk of fire,’ said the Airbus engineer. ‘The Boeing and Douglas approach is that, in the event of a survivable belly landing, the engine would come off the wing, hopefully cleanly. Our approach is that the engine would stay on the wing and slide along, again leaving the fuel tanks intact and providing a degree of protection for the fuselage.’

"… FAA spokesman, said the divergent Boeing-Airbus philosophies both meet the existing safety rules….

"… In the late 1970’s, Boeing considered and then ruled out using the Airbus design …"

[Kingshakabobo]

18. Her's the link, btw

>>>Moreover, evidence emerging from two recent fatal 747 crashes suggest that powerful gyroscopic and aerodynamic forces can cause an engine that breaks loose in flight to veer disastrously into other parts of the aircraft.<<<



http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=1679083&date=19930109&query=airbus

[leveymg]

19. Fuse pins are designed to break away when an engine explodes

In a catastrophic turbine failure, the force is front-rear oscillation not lateral loads as during the sort of high-G rolling maneuver described as having happened during the last minutes of flight of Ft. 93. I found your sources. See, http://yarchive.net/air/airliners/el_al_747_crash.html

Entirely different load vectors. An engine failure typically happens during takeoff and involves the separation of fan blades from the turbine shaft. That creates an front-rear rocking motion, that causes the fuse pin to fail at a design stress point. Here's a pretty good explanation of the sort of engine failure the fuse pins are designed to mitigate: "The fan has a diameter of 8 feet and the fan blade tips are rotating with a speed of close to 1,000 ft per second shortly after take off. A fan blade’s weight is a few 10 lbs. In case of a fatal failure (means the fan spits out one blade upwards or towards the fuselage) I am sure the impact due to the enormous momentum of the blade would be powerful enough to weaken the structure of the plane very very seriously." http://www.airdisaster.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-53087.html


As for the 707 barrel rolls during early testing, here's a video. I didn't think they were stressed for aerobatic maneuvers, either, until I saw this. Enjoy. http://www.aviationexplorer.com/707_roll_video.htm

[Kingshakabobo]

20. I've seen that video. It wasn't a sanctioned maneuver or test.

BTW, It was a "1 G maneuver"

I assure you, it is possible to cause air-frame failure. See: The Long Island crash. Excessive rudder use caused the vertical stabilizer to detach and, subsequently, one of the engines.

I don't know what you are trying to say. Are you saying it is impossible to cause engine separation during low-altitude very-high-speed maneuvers at excessive air-speed?

If so, you are flat out wrong.

You are completely missing the point. Yes, the engines are designed to sheer off during a belly-landing but the article points out other "untended consequences" of using the fuse-bolt model. BTW, the ARE other reasons besides belly-landings for wanting the engines to separate.


Again,,,,,, >>>that powerful gyroscopic and aerodynamic forces can cause an engine that breaks loose in flight to veer disastrously into other parts <<<

[leveymg]

21. Please see my revised post that discusses those other engine separation

design criteria. That's a take-off fan blade separation that causes a rocking motion on the engine mounts. The fuse pin design is just as strong as conventional bolts in resisting lateral forces.

Sorry, but there's no reason to believe that fuse joints are any more succeptable to failure during roll maneuvers than bolts. Burden's on you to show they are.

I've read about cases where engines fell off, and cases where wings fell off, but these seem to have different causes. A excessive high-G roll maneuver would seem more likely to snap the wing root than to cause the engines to pivot catastrophically up and down.

No evidence of wing separation, but lots that the aircraft was trailing wreckage for miles after its engine and part of the rear fuselage was shot up.

[leveymg]

22. The lateral loads would have had to exceed 3 Gs.

The closest I could find is this dicussion of the fuse pin design lateral load limits on a 747. About 3 Gs. See,http://www.freeessays.cc/db/8/asp22.shtml

"The pylon is designed to carry the thrust and torque loads of the engine as well as lateral, longitudinal, and vertical loads from maneuvers and gusts. Lateral loads are ultimately absorbed by the midspar fuse pins and side brace. According to Boeing, the fuse pins can withstand an ultimate lateral load of more than 2.8 G on the engine. Additionally, Boeing reported that the portion of the structure of the pylon that is critical under lateral loads is the firewall just aft of the forward engine mount. The Boeing calculations indicated that this firewall will fracture at a lateral load of between 2.35 G and 2.88 G when it contains a fatigue crack of the size found in this structure. The Boeing 747 airplane and its pylon structure were designed in the mid-1960's using the computer capabilities and analytical skills of the time. Boeing's current computer modeling of the pylon structure and the loads applied to it are considerably more complicated and provide greater resolution of the data than would have been possible with the techniques employed when the airplane was designed."

[leveymg]

23. It is extremely unlikely that Flt. 93 came anywhere close to 3 Gs lateral

for the simple reason that it would have stalled and crashed. In other words, the plane would have lost altitude and crashed before it broke apart due to aerobatic manuevers.

That fact can be seen in the discussion below of the Famous One-G low altitude 707 barrel roll: http://www.flightsim.com/cgi/kds?$=main/feature/barrel/barrel.htm

"In the absence of any more detailed information, when I did the diagram, I put in two structural failure lines at 2.75 G positive and 1 G negative - the other boundary of the flight envelope being the never exceed speed, or Vne, which given a Vno of 375 knots, was probably around 450 knots, or around 520 mph at sea level. 490 mph gave Tex a margin for error.

In our made-up graph, the 367-80 will keep flying as long as the airspeed and the amount of G pulled keep the plot within the white area. On the limits I drew in, if 2.75 or -1.0 G is exceeded, or the plane exceeds the Vne in level flight, there is a very high chance of something breaking. In other words, it would be possible to pull 2.0 G at 380 knots and get away with it, but the plane would stall if the pilot pulls 2.0 G at 120 knots - easy as that. In practice, the Dash 80's upper G limit was at least 3.5 G, but the graph is there to give a general idea of how these things work. A fully aerobatic plane would have much wider G limits and the stall curves would also be steeper, giving more freedom to maneuver, but we are talking an airliner here and sustained positive or negative G capacity would have been outside the designers' brief - but even given a Vn diagram like the one above, it is possible to fly a 1 G maneuver as long as the airspeed limits are observed - which is why Tex chose a barrel roll. An aileron roll would have been tricky given the slow rate of roll of the 707 and a loop would have put him too close to the positive and negative load factors for comfort; but expertly done, a barrel roll pulls neutral G all the way around and a good pilot can balance a glass of water on the glareshield and not even see the meniscus tilt. So a barrel roll it had to be."

[Kingshakabobo]

26. So, you don't think the plane would have approached 3 "Gs"?????

..........during the struggle and hard right final turn? After all the violent maneuvers the hi-jackers put the plane through to destabilize the passengers??

[Kingshakabobo]

24. I don't care to argue if fuse-bolts are more susceptible to.....

causing engine separation than non-fuse bolts. My point is, engines CAN BECOME SEPARATED DURING VIOLENT MANEUVERS AT EXCESSIVE SPEED, regardless of the mounting technology.

Your assertion that the plane must have been shot down because the engine fell off in flight IS WRONG.

The engines of the AIRBUS 300 Long Island crash separated prior to impact. The Airbus uses, supposedly, stronger connections and they STILL separated.

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2004/AAR0404.pdf

Page 147....last paragraph

How much more proof do you need?

I'm not even arguing the plane WASN'T shot down (I don't believe it was). I'm merely pointing out your defective reasoning in this particular issue.

[leveymg]

25. The A-300 lost its tail and yawed sufficiently to cause the engine nacelle

pylon, or mountings to fail. That is not the case with Flt. 93, if the official transcripts are to be believed. According to the official account, after a series of maneuvers, the pilot had the plane flying straight and level before a final, steep catterwalling dive from an altitude of a few hundred feet. That is not consistent with an aircraft that has already lost its engine. Here's an account:

This is a summary of the flight conditions of Flight 93 beginning at the time of the passenger revolt:

* Aircraft was rolling (waving wings) in the 3 minute period between 9:57 and 9:59:52
(Must assume that's what the Falcon 20 saw.)

* The aircraft was pitching (nose up and down) in the 11 seconds between 9:59:52 and 10:00:03

* Aircraft stabilised at 10:00:03

* No mention of any changed flight condition until 10:01:00 when the pilot 'stopped the violent manouvres' (?)

* Crash begins with a hard right turn at 10:02:23


Expanded timeline to describe the causes of the altered flight conditions

9:57
Passenger revolt begins -- people running up to first class.
Cockpit door closed.
At some time Jarrah (hijacker pilot) began rolling the aircraft left and right to try to knock the passengers off their feet.

9:58:57
Passengers trying to breach the cockpit.
Jarrah continues rolling.

9:59:52
Jarrah stops rolling, starts pitching nose up and down.

10:00:03
Jarrah stabilises the aircraft

10:00:08
Jarrah asks if he should finish it off (crash it)
Another hijacker says no, wait till they all come
Fighting still outside of cockpit

10:00:26
Passenger said,"In the cockpit. If we don’t we’ll die!" (so presumably not in cockpit yet)

10:00:42
Passenger says "Roll it" (so maybe this is where the struggle for control begins -- or maybe not -- read on)

Now this is odd!

10:01:00
Jarrah 'stopped the violent maneuvers at about' this time. (WTF! is there a fight for control or not?)
Jarrah asked again about putting it down now and the response is yes.
The passenger assault continues

10:02:23
Hijacker says "pull it down"
Hijackers remain at controls.
Turn hard right and initiate crash descent.



Extract from page 14 of 911 report that contains the above info -- no need to read

At 9:57, the passenger assault began. Several passengers had terminated
phone calls with loved ones in order to join the revolt. One of the callers
ended her message as follows:"Everyone’s running up to first class. I’ve got to
go. Bye."

The cockpit voice recorder captured the sounds of the passenger assault
muffled by the intervening cockpit door. Some family members who listened
to the recording report that they can hear the voice of a loved one among the
din. We cannot identify whose voices can be heard. But the assault was sus-tained.

In response, Jarrah immediately began to roll the airplane to the left and
right, attempting to knock the passengers off balance. At 9:58:57, Jarrah told another hijacker in the cockpit to block the door. Jarrah continued to roll the airplane sharply left and right, but the assault continued. At 9:59:52, Jarrah changed tactics and pitched the nose of the airplane up and down to disrupt the assault.
(...)
At 10:00:03, Jarrah stabilized the airplane.

Five seconds later, Jarrah asked,"Is that it? Shall we finish it off?" A hijacker
responded,"No. Not yet.When they all come, we finish it off." The sounds of
fighting continued outside the cockpit. Again, Jarrah pitched the nose of the
aircraft up and down. At 10:00:26, a passenger in the background said,"In the
cockpit. If we don’t we’ll die!" Sixteen seconds later, a passenger yelled,"Roll
it!" Jarrah stopped the violent maneuvers at about 10:01:00 and said,"Allah is
the greatest! Allah is the greatest!" He then asked another hijacker in the cock-pit, "
Is that it? I mean, shall we put it down?" to which the other replied, "Yes,
put it in it, and pull it down."
The passengers continued their assault and at 10:02:23, a hijacker said,"Pull
it down! Pull it down!" The hijackers remained at the controls but must have
judged that the passengers were only seconds from overcoming them.The air-plane
headed down; the control wheel was turned hard to the right.

It is possible, of course, that the engine detached during the final descent. However, the plane was already at such a low altitude that it would not have picked up a lot of airspeed by the time of impact. In fact, it might lose some due to increased drag. If the pilot is flying at an altitude of 200 to 500 feet at 500 mph, and he pitches the wheel forward and hard right, the plane will spin, and drop like a stone, but only for a few seconds before it crashes. Would that be enough time for an engine to detach, and be flung a mile away? From the crash scene photos, the 757 impacted nearly vertically. The engine would not have simply skipped on the ground if it separated at the time of impact - the angle of attack was too steep for that.

There may be an alternative explanation for the separation of the engine. If the engine was shot or blown away, it would cause the opposite wing to dip, the plane would stall, nose down, and spin. An inexperienced pilot would lose it, in the same way if he intentionally pushed the yoke forward and cranked the wheel over. The only difference would be that the engine would surely be found some distance (a mile seems reasonable) from the rest of the main crash debris. Other debris would appear miles further away in the event of a shootdown if the rear of the fuselage was also damaged.

[Kingshakabobo]

27. You said it:

"It is possible, of course, that the engine detached during the final descent."


"""but only for a few seconds before it crashes. Would that be enough time for an engine to detach, and be flung a mile"""

Yes. At 500mph it doesn't take long to travel a mile.

BTW, the Airbus was traveling at, roughly, half the speed of the 757.

[leveymg]

28. Good morning. I feel that we're left with some new questions

No certainty, but more specific doubts about what happened. I want to thank you for our conversation. We ended up answering my original question as to how many G it would take to detach that engine, and what might cause it. I'm still not sure which is the better explanation. A good starting point for further inquiry.

[Kingshakabobo]

29. Good morning.

I must say, I'm not in the conspiracy camp when it comes to 9/11. If anything, I fall in to the LIHOP category - and that's a bit of a stretch for me. That being said, after watching "Loose Change", I was fascinated with the decontamination of the former "Joint Chief of Staff" who wanted to gin-up a war with Cuba by causing fake crashes. Other than that, the movie reminded me of a Nostradamus movie I watched when I was a kid.

At the very least, this conversation has rekindled my 30 year morbid fascination with plane crashes. I just spent the morning looking at air-disaster websites.

I found this on "Popular Mechanics." Apparently, it wasn't the whole engine and it was 900-1800 feet away from the impact crater.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=7&c=y


Roving Engine
CLAIM: One of Flight 93's engines was found "at a considerable distance from the crash site," according to Lyle Szupinka, a state police officer on the scene who was quoted in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Offering no evidence, a posting on Rense.com claimed: "The main body of the engine ... was found miles away from the main wreckage site with damage comparable to that which a heat-seeking missile would do to an airliner."

FACT: Experts on the scene tell PM that a fan from one of the engines was recovered in a catchment basin, downhill from the crash site. Jeff Reinbold, the National Park Service representative responsible for the Flight 93 National Memorial, confirms the direction and distance from the crash site to the basin: just over 300 yards south, which means the fan landed in the direction the jet was traveling. "It's not unusual for an engine to move or tumble across the ground," says Michael K. Hynes, an airline accident expert who investigated the crash of TWA Flight 800 out of New York City in 1996. "When you have very high velocities, 500 mph or more," Hynes says, "you are talking about 700 to 800 ft. per second. For something to hit the ground with that kind of energy, it would only take a few seconds to bounce up and travel 300 yards." Numerous crash analysts contacted by PM concur.

[leveymg]

30. I wouldn't take the Popular Mechanics piece at face value. But,

in the absence of hard facts, it is difficult to make an informed decision about what actually happened. The Bush Administration's predeliction for secrecy and obfuscation in the handling of virtually every aspect of 9/11 certainly lends itself to the wildest sort of theorizing, on all sides. Even the official explanation seems incredible.

As for my take on what actually led up to 9/11, and what the Administration's culpability is, please see: www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00257.htm

[Ilsa]

6. I need to know...is this generally accepted as true? Is it documented

that the right engine was that far away? I don't want to state it in an argument and have someone "Snope" me on it.

[leveymg]

14. Here's the account from Cooperative Research.

Decide for yourself. (Note to mods,CR may be posted at length):http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&day_of_9/11=ua93


(Before 10:06 a.m.): Witnesses See Flight 93 Flying Erratically and Making Strange Noises 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.
People and organizations involved: Eric Peterson, Tim Thornsberg, Laura Temyer, Terry Butler, Ernie Stuhl, Charles Sturtz, Michael Merringer, Tim Lensbouer, Kelly Leverknight, Linda Shepley, Lee Purbaugh, Rob Kimmel, Bob Blair, Tom Fritz

(Before 10:06 a.m.): Flight 93 Breaks Up Prior to Crash? 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.
People and organizations involved: Carol Delasko, Federal Bureau of Investigation

10:06 a.m.: Flight 93 Crashes into Pennsylvania Countryside Flight 93 crashed in the Pennsylvania countryside. Resue vehicles arrive in the distance.

[6000eliot]

3. I don't believe it happened like the movie

And I don't think any of it happened the way we were told it did.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

4. Don't forget.....

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

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A comment Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made during a Christmas Eve address to U.S. troops in Baghdad has sparked new conspiracy theories about the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

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."

A Pentagon spokesman insisted that Rumsfeld simply misspoke, but Internet conspiracy theorists seized on the reference to the plane having been shot down.

[leveymg]

7. Rummie also referred to the Pentagon being "bombed." But . . .

too much is made about his mis-speaks. He does it a lot.

[H2O Man]

8. Yes. n/t

[Raine]

9. Yes

no doubt in my mind.

[guinivere]

12. I don't know what the hell to think.

The government is lying and sometimes I wonder if we will ever know for sure what really happened.

[Twist_U_Up]

13. I guess someone didn't like the results

so here it sits out of the mainstream veiw,so depressing this site is sometimes.

Democratic means Democracy in case you forgot.

[DemInDistress]

16. abso-fucking-lutely...shot down !! nt

[Independent_Liberal]

31. From evidence that I've seen on some 9/11 Truth websites...

...I'd say yes, it was shot down.

[mirandapriestly]

32. Either it was shot down or

the gov't made it appear that it was shot down and they were covering that up as opposed to covering up something worse. (So that those pesky people who actually read and invariably have questions will think they have it figured out with a scenario that isn't really that bad since it is actually what they should have done.)

[Peter Frank]

33. Not one drop of blood was found in the tiny hole where #93 "went down"...

Naysayers -- is there any blood evidence that anyone died at the scene?