References on the Truth about Flight 93

[Guest guest]

References on the Truth About Flight 93

February 25, 2005

 

Below is the “official story” about what happened to

Flight 93. Next, read and listen to the links below

for evidence about what really happened to Flight 93.

 

THE OFFICIAL STORY

On Hallowed Ground 9-7-02

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/living/columnists/dave_barry/3972571.htm?1c

 

“On the same July day, a few hours' drive to the west,

near the small Pennsylvania town of Shanksville, Wally

Miller, coroner of Somerset County, Pa., walks slowly

through the tall grass covering a quiet field, to a

place near the edge, just before some woods.

 

This is the place where, on Sept. 11, 2001, United

Airlines Flight 93, scene of a desperate airborne

battle pitting passengers and crew against terrorist

hijackers, came hurtling out of the sky, turning

upside down and slamming into the earth at more than

500 mph.

 

That horrendous event transformed this quiet field

into a smoking, reeking hell, a nightmare landscape of

jet fuel, burning plane debris, scattered human

remains.

 

Now, 10 months later, the field is green again.

Peaceful and green.

 

Except where Flight 93 plunged into the ground. That

one place is still barren dirt. That one place has not

healed.

 

" Interesting that the grass won't grow right here, "

says Miller.

 

Nobody on Flight 93 was heading for Somerset County

that day. The 33 passengers and seven crew were

heading from Newark, N.J., to San Francisco. The four

hijackers had a different destination in mind,

probably Washington, D.C., possibly the White House.”

 

Second article describing the “official story” and

the cell phone call said to have been made.

 

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/attack/ap_bathroom_call.htm

'We are being hijacked!' passenger calls just before

crash

11-12-01 By Todd Spangle AP SHANKSVILLE, Pa. –

 

EVIDENCE ABOUT WHAT REALLY HAPPENED

 

I. Audio Link to Howard Stern Called re Flight 93

4-21-04

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2004/042104flight93.htm

Eyewitness Confirms Shootdown of Flight 93

 

II. Alex Jones Interviews Col. Donn de Grand-Pre: Col.

Donn de Grand-Pre, U.S. Army (ret.). de Grand-Pre

outlines how 9/11 was carried out by order of an

inside group of Neo-Cons. de Grand-Pre has personal

knowledge about the fighter jet that shot down

Flight 93.

Explosive Interview with references provided..

Audio interview link:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/290204degrand.mp3

 

III. Rumsfeld’s Freudian Slip about Flight 93

(skip to 3:30) 12-27-04

Audio Link: http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=517

Rumsfeld says Flight 93 was ’shot down’

By John Byrne | RAW STORY Editor

 

IV. DC Envoy Says Bush Ordered Flight 93 Shot Down

Infowars.com | February 24, 2005

http://www.infowars.com/articles/world/canada_missle_reject_perplexes_us.htm

Reversing all previous statements, The Washington

Envoy to Canada, Paul Cellucci told his Canadian

audience that a Canadian general at NORAD scrambled

military jets under orders from Bush to shoot down

flight 93

 

" He compared the situation to one that occurred during

the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the U.S. He noted that

it was a Canadian general at Norad who scrambled

military jets under orders from Bush to shoot down a

hijacked commercial aircraft headed for Washington. "

 

Cellucci's statement thus reverses all of Washington's

previous statements about Flight 93. (Other than the

two times that Rumsfeld admitted that Flight 93 was

shot down..)

 

Missile rejection perplexes U.S.

 

CP | February 23, 2005

By COLIN PERKEL AND BETH GORHAM

 

(CP) - Canada's apparent decision to stay out of a

North American missile-defense system has dumbfounded

Americans as an unnecessary giveaway of sovereignty,

Washington's envoy to Ottawa said Wednesday.

 

" We don't get it, " Paul Cellucci said in Toronto. " If

there's a missile incoming, and it's heading toward

Canada, you are going to leave it up to the United

States to determine what to do about that missile. We

don't think that is in Canada's sovereign interest. "

 

Despite strong pressure from the U.S. to sign on,

Prime Minister Paul Martin was expected to pull the

plug on Canada's participation in the missile program

on Thursday.

 

However, reaction from American officials suggested

the decision had already been made.

 

Regardless, said Cellucci, Washington would press

ahead with its plans.

 

" We will deploy. We will protect North America, " he

said.

 

" We think Canada would want to be in the room deciding

what to do about an incoming missile that might be

heading toward Canada. "

 

In Washington, State Department spokesman Richard

Boucher said Canada had yet to inform the U.S. of its

decision.

 

He refused to speculate on the effect a negative

decision would have on relations between the two

neighbors or whether it would cause a rift.

 

" We have a very solid basis of co-operation in many

areas and we'll see how that sees us through, " said

Boucher.

 

A senior Canadian official who requested anonymity

said Wednesday that Canada's decision was relayed at

this week's NATO summit in Brussels attended by Martin

and President George W. Bush.

 

But Canada's interest in Norad, the joint Canada-U.S.

air defence command, remains paramount, said the

official.

 

" The key for Canada is preserving the Norad

relationship. It's such an important command that

losing it would not be in Canada's best interests. "

 

Boucher noted Canada and the U.S. amended an agreement

last August to allow Norad to track any incoming rogue

missiles.

 

Washington had hoped Canada would would go further and

participate in building the continental defence

shield, an elaborate system that some worry could lead

to weapons in space and an international arms race.

 

Cellucci compared the situation to one that occurred

during the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the U.S. He noted

that it was a Canadian general at Norad who scrambled

military jets under orders from Bush to shoot down a

hijacked commercial aircraft headed for Washington.

 

Had that plane been flying over Canada, it would have

fallen to the prime minister to make the decision to

shoot it down, Cellucci said.

 

That's why Americans were " perplexed " as to why

Canadians would want to leave it up to the Americans

to decide what action to take in the event a missile

was aimed at Canada.

 

David Biette, director of the Canada Institute at the

Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in

Washington, agreed with Cellucci's assessment that

Canada is giving up sovereignty.

 

" I fear that it risks marginalizing Canada and Canada

is ceding sovereignty by not being there when the

decisions are being made, " said Biette.

 

" It's making people unhappy in this administration

that Canada is happy to take a free ride. "

 

However, like Cellucci, Biette said he didn't think

the issue would ultimately hurt Canada-U.S. relations.

 

Unpopular with most Canadians, the multibillion-dollar

program to shoot down incoming missiles has been a

political nightmare for Martin's minority government.

 

There's been intense pressure from Bush, who

unexpectedly raised the issue during his visit to

Canada last December and reportedly was blunt with

Martin in a private meeting.

 

Some U.S. analysts were shaking their heads at the

intrigue and confusion stirred this week by Frank

McKenna, who takes over as ambassador to the United

States next week.

 

McKenna told a Commons committee Tuesday that Canada

is effectively already part of the missile-defence

program, given Norad's increased responsibility.

 

" We're part of it now and the question is what more do

we need? " he asked. " What does 'sign on' mean? "

 

Behind closed doors Wednesday, Martin indicated Canada

hadn't joined the missile program and suggested

McKenna erred by saying otherwise.

 

" Did Frank express himself badly? Perhaps, " is the way

one Liberal described the prime minister's message at

Wednesday's caucus meeting. Another Liberal confirmed

the account.

 

Liberal MPs have also been sent speaking notes from

party brass, urging them to get out and toe the

government line on missile defence.

 

" Canada is obviously not participating in BMD, " said a

copy of Tuesday's Liberal Research Bureau message

obtained by The Canadian Press.

 

" The government has not taken that decision yet and

the ambassador never intended to leave the opposite

impression. "

 

U.S. defence analyst Dwight Mason said Canada's

refusal to get more involved would be " unfortunate in

a symbolic sense. "

 

" It's the first time since 1938 that Canada would have

refused to participate in continental defence. It's a

turning point. But the impact would be much greater if

Canada pulled back from where it is now. "

 

Flashback:

 

Rumsfeld says 9-11 plane 'shot down' in Pennsylvania

During surprise Christmas Eve trip, defense secretary

contradicts official story

 

WND |December 27, 2004

 

WASHINGTON – Ever since Sept. 11, 2001, there have

been questions about Flight 93, the ill-fated plane

that crashed in the rural fields of Pennsylvania.

 

The official story has been that passengers on the

United Airlines flight rushed the hijackers in an

effort to prevent them from crashing the plane into a

strategic target – possibly the U.S. Capitol.

 

During his surprise Christmas Eve trip to Iraq,

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld referred to the

flight being shot down – long a suspicion because of

the danger the flight posed to Washington landmarks

and population centers.

 

Was it a slip of the tongue? Was it an error? Or was

it the truth, finally being dropped on the public more

than three years after the tragedy of the terrorist

attacks that killed nearly 3,000?

 

Here's what Rumsfeld said Friday: " 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. "

 

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.' "

 

Flashback: Found: The 911 " Stand Down Order "

911 stand down order Jerry Russell | March 31 2004

http://www.infowars.com/print/Sept11/found_standown.htm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read only the mail you want - Mail SpamGuard.