Rare television footage taken on September 11, 2001 reveals facts that
contradict the generally accepted explanation that United Airlines Flight
93 crashed 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
Other transmissions followed, and at 9:30 Ziad
Jarrah, the alleged hijacker - a fragment of whose passport was found at
the crash site - according to 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
CNN says, 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."
Video footage, however, appears to support the theory that
Flight 93 may have been shot down upon orders from U.S. officials.
In the NBC and Fox news televison footage from September 11, 2001 we hear:
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."
Fox Reporter: "I've seen the pictures, and it looks like there's nothing
there except a hole in the ground."
Fox Affiliate Photographer: "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?"
Fox Affiliate Photographer: "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, your could see
dirt, ash, and people walking around"
Fox Reporter: "How big would you say that hole was?"
Fox Affiliate Photographer: "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?"
Fox Affiliate Photographer: "You couldn't see anything . . . just dirt,
ash, and people walking around."
Indeed the Flight 93 crash site looks remarkably different from other plane
crash sites, eg that of Pan Am Flight 103 - a Boeing 747-100, or the Dash 8 Q400
Bombardier that crashed in Buffalo (below).
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 National
Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.
While questioning Norman Y. Mineta, Former Secretary of Transportation,
Mr. Hamilton refers to 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 second order referred to in this questioning of Mr. Mineta appears to be
a do not shoot order given by Vice President Cheney for the aircraft (or
missile) headed toward the Pentagon.
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), reported 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
Russert followed up: "And you decided . . ."
Cheney corrected Russert. "We decided to do it." He was referring to himself
"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.
When sections of the 9/11 Commissions report began arriving at the White House
in late June 2004 (Shenon, p411),
Dick Cheney and his counsel, David Addington, were outraged by the
commission's timeline on Cheney's actions on September 11 - and the
clear suggestion that Cheney had issued an unconstitutional shoot-down
order that morning without Bush's knowledge or approval.
In yet another twist to the saga of Flight 93, ABC affiliate WCPO in
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.
In February 2006, Liz
Foreman, whose name was associated with the orginal report,
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.
CBS News had earlier reported that a
plane crashed at Camp David, Maryland.
On April 28, 2009, Pilots for 9/11 Truth reported that Air Traffic Control
radar shows Flight 93 airborne
after the reported crash.
[Light debris was also found eight miles away in New Baltimore. A section of
engine weighing a ton was located 2,000 yards - over a mile - from the crash
site. Theorists point out a Sidewinder heat-seeking missile attacks the
hottest part of aircraft - the engine.--Richard Wallace, "WHAT DID HAPPEN TO FLIGHT 93?," Mirror, September 12,
[First, although the Commission says that Richard Clarke did not receive the
shoot-down authorization until 10:25, Clarke himself says that he
received it some 35 minutes earlier, at about 9:50. Second, the story of
Cheney's giving permission to engage an aircraft that was 80 miles out
originally appeared in stories published shortly after 9/11. In these
stories, the permission was given earlier, when Flight 93 truly was still
aloft, and fighters were sent to shoot it down.
That original account is supported, moreover, by several reports stating
that prior to crashing, Flight 93 was being tailed by US military fighters.
One such report came from CBS; another came from a flight controller who had
ignored an order not to talk to the media; and one such report even came
from Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz.--David Ray Griffin, "The Commission's Treatment of
United Airlines Flight 93," mujca.com]
[Under the weight of evidence that the cellphone (not airfone) calls were
essentially impossible as described by the Bush White House and the major
media on the day in question, we have no alternative but to give serious
consideration to the operational possibilities, as outlined here.--A. K.
Dewdney, "The Cellphone
and Airfone Calls from Flight UA93," physics911.net, September 13, 2005]
[ . . . the FBI had in 2006 presented, as evidence in the trial of Zacarias
Moussaoui (sometimes called "the 20th hijacker"), a report on
phone calls from the four airliners. According to this report, 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. When the
FBI had to present evidence in a court of law, therefore, it would not claim
that any high-altitude cell phone calls had occurred. (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).--David Ray Griffin,
"New Evidence that the Official Story about 9/11 is
Indefensible," Canadian, October 8, 2007]
[1. The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not
2. All Altitude data on the northern approach contradicts witnesses
published by the New York Times.
3. Witness observations of approach path contradict northern approach as
described by Popular Mechanics and the US Govt. Several witnesses observed
the aircraft approaching from southeast over Indian Lake and from the south
prior to witnessing explosion. Parts found in New Baltimore, 8 miles
southeast of crater is a direct contradiction to the northern approach
claimed by the US Govt.
4. Environmental Protection Agency reports no soil contamination of jet
fuel after testing 5,000-6,000 yards of earth including 3 ground wells.
Smoke plume photographed by a witness does not suggest a jet fuel rich
[With regard to the FBI, almost all of my discussion is about its 2006
report to the Moussaoui trial, at which it said that there had been only two
cell phone calls from all four flights combined.--David Ray Griffin, "Reported Cell Phone Calls from the 9/11 Planes,"
globalresearch.ca, September 7, 2008]
[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.--David
Eliasson, "The Events of September
11, 2001 and the Right to the Truth," aldeilis.net, April 14, 2008, p.
[The debris of Flight 93 fell in the woods and covered a large area. This
is the real debris field and was kept hidden from the view of the public and
the press while the bodies and evidence were picked up. . . .
"We tried to cooperate," he said. I knew what he meant without pressing the
point. The FBI agents had given similar orders all over Shanksville and
Somerset County. The Hoovers had been asked not to talk about what had
happened on 9-11. The public was told that the plane had crashed into the
reclaimed mine while the real debris field was cleaned up in complete
secrecy in the woods around the Hoover cabins.--Christopher Bollyn, "The
Shanksville Deception of 9-11," bollyn.com, February 4, 2010]
[On September 11, 2001, PDAS was used to convey the information from the Air
Force Chief of Staff to the White House, CIA, and other select agencies that
the Air Force had successfully intercepted and downed a target over
Pennsylvania. It is believed that the "target" in question was United flight
93, although there is no confirmation that the aircraft was in fact the one
downed by Air Force interceptors.--"9-11
Coordinated By Cheney," waynemadsenreport.com, April 30, 2010]
[United Airlines Manager of Flight Dispatch Michael J. Winter: "United 93
received messages from CMI remote ground station in Champaign, IL more than
7 minutes after the alleged crash"--"9/11
AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE WELL AFTER CRASH," pilotsfor911truth.org,
December 7, 2011]
MU5735 dived into forested, mountainous terrain
UA93 disappeared in a field at Shanksville, Pennsylvania
MU5735 blackboxes found within a week
UA93 black boxes not found
MU5735 large sections, lots of debris recovered
UA93 largest piece size of a "phone book"
Hundredsemployed to recover MU5735 remains
About a dozen observed at UA93 "crash site"
MU5735 relatives visit crash site UA93 visitors barred from "crash site"