Posted on 01/26/2003 9:28:46 PM PST by Polycarp
Of course, well founded uncertainly 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.
"In separate interviews," reported the Record, "five residents who live and work less than four miles from the crash site said they saw a second plane flying erratically within minutes of the crash of the Boeing 757 that took off from Newark two hours earlier Tuesday morning."
One of the witnesses early on was Susan Mcelwain. Two others were Dennis Decker and Rick Chaney, who were at work making wooden pallets when they heard an explosion and came running outside to watch a large mushroom cloud spreading over the ridge.
"As soon as we looked up, we saw a mid-sized jet flying low and fast," Decker told the Record. "It appeared to make a loop or part of a circle, and then it turned fast and headed out. " Describing the plane as a Lear-jet type, with engines mounted near the tail and painted white with no identifying markings, Decker said, "If you were here to see it, you'd have no doubt. It was a jet plane, and it had to be flying real close when that 757 went down."
"If I was the FBI," he added, "I'd find out who was driving that plane."
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.
Maybe. Maybe not. But the truth should be known one way or the other.
The interviewer laid the foundation quite carefully vis a vis the passenger initiatives alleged to have taken place and the obligation of the military to defend. Minetta didn't respond to "so was this plane shot down" or "do you think the passengers were successful" but when the reporter said "or could it have been some combination of both", he echoed in reply, "some combination of both".
I thought the "some combination of both" response an outstanding bit of Orwellian speak by Minetta.
Yeah right.
He sure did. He *only* presents a select set of 'facts' and NOT the entire story.
You peple are so d*mned easy to fool - because you're *not* technically oriented, have very short memories and even shorter attention spans!!!
DO YOU recall how many people heard made PHONE CALLS from the GTE Aifones on the backs of the seats that day?
DO YOU remember all those husbands and wives who lost their loved ones they had just talked to via those GTE Airfones were interviewed numerous times by the networks on national TV?
Remmeber?
Those same kin ALSO had a chance and ACCEPTED an invitation to HEAR the cockpit tapes.
There were NO DOUBTS in their minds that UA93 crashed after a struggle in the cockpit.
Exactly so. Perhaps our great-grandchildren will hear the full story of Flight 93, but we do not have to.
How many flgiht hours did the Boeing 747-100 that was TWA800 have on it?
Do you know?
Was it a young plane or an old plane?
Hmmmm?
Take a look at this thread.
Just heard tapes from Flight 93
JMO, but the Mirror is one of the most leftist papers in the UK. This reporter is muckraking and trying to cause dissention with selected facts.
US Air Force commanders considered crashing fighter jets into hijacked planes on 11 September because of a lack of armed planes, a BBC investigation reveals.
In the immediate aftermath of the terror attacks US fighter planes took to the skies to defend America from any further attacks.
Their mission was to protect President George W Bush and to intercept any hijacked aircraft heading to other targets in the US.
But, as a new BBC programme Clear The Skies reveals, the threat of an attack from within America had been considered so small that the entire US mainland was being defended by only 14 planes.
As a result unarmed planes were diverted from training missions in a desperate bid to increase the number of fighter planes patrolling American airspace.
Colonel Robert Marr was Commander of the North East Defence Sector and remembers the words that came over the secure phone "we will take lives in the air to preserve lives on the ground".
However, at the time of the attacks the US had just four fighter pilots on alert covering the north eastern United States.
In other words, there were indeed 4 armed planes guarding the north eastern United States, and the word came over the secure phone "we will take lives in the air to preserve lives on the ground".
Where do you think the armed planes would be? More than likely near Washington DC, only 10 minutes from the crash site by fighter jet.
I'm not sure why the critics here are so vehemently insulting.
I'm much more at ease knowing they were willing to do what was necessary at the time, if that is what happened.
So, the allegation is this: The US has an entirely secret, armed, warjet that it stations on call for air-to-air defense, instead of just using F-16's and F-15's?
Why would they do that? Eyewitness reports are exceedingly unreliable. That is not to say that these people are liars or anything, just that in times of stress people very often confuse time-frames and other information.
That information will released just after the Kennedy Assassination information is "declassified."
Office buildings all around the country were being evacuated that day, not just Pittsburgh.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.