flash Intro Movie Down with murder inc Index News by country GOOGLE US DEFENSE



About those hijacked planes - Flight anomalies

As you study the flight paths of the four 9-11 jets, consider this:

The "hijackers" or "suicide pilots" were said to have shown "an incredible degree of organization or skill." If that is so, why did the suicide pilots use planes from Boston to hit the WTC? Hijacking planes from Kennedy or LaGuardia to hit New York targets soon after take-off -- before NORAD had a chance to react -- would be the obvious plan to anyone with common sense, let alone "skill."


Likewise, skilled or organized suicide pilots would take a plane from National, Baltimore-Washington, or Dulles airports and hit the Pentagon soon after take off. Why meander all the way to Ohio? There was no reason, and the wasted time would endanger their mission. Remember, "real" suicide pilots would believe NORAD was on the job.

Duh . . .

That is the fingerprint of a military/intelligence operation: Military/intelligence operatives believe everyone is as stupid as they are. The routes taken by the jets are just one more sign that there were no real "suicide pilots."

The Official Truth in Three Versions

Rendezvous and Land

Many articles about the hijackings have shown diagrams of the flight-paths followed by the four hijacked planes. These flight paths were not taken from recordings of Air Traffic Control radar as you might think, but from Flight-Tracking services, available to the public on the Internet.

If you connect to a Flight-Tracker you can actually watch a plane on its journey using radar information. Air traffic controllers use radar and the information sent from the plane's transponder, which shows altitude as well as the plane's identification. The hijackers turned off the planes' transponders which made it difficult for ATC to track them, but the flight tracking service continued to record the planes' locations.

If Operation 9-11 was based loosely on Operation Northwoods, what exactly did they do? It would make sense to rendezvous with a drone as close as possible to a military base to avoid the chances of someone seeing an unexplained blip on the radar. If the passenger planes were landed it would need to be at airports or bases close to the target so that the radar trace would appear to finish at the target. - Operation 9-11: Rendezvous Points

Operation Pearl

It is possible to produce the appearance of a terrorist attack on the United States by means that do not employ terrorists, as such, but by the simple substitution of one aircraft for another, particularly when the transponders of the aircraft involved are turned off. The only people who need to be deceived by such an operation are the radar operators at air traffic control (ATC) centers.

The scenario explored here, called Operation Pearl (after Pearl Harbor), has been described in sufficient operational detail that sound judgments can be made about a) feasibility and b) consistency with evidence on the ground. At the time of this writing it is probably the best available description of what probably took place on September 11, 2001.

Under the Operation Pearl scenario, the passengers of all four flights died in an aerial explosion over Shanksville, PA and the remaining three airliners are at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean. Physics 911

2 of the Hijacked Planes nearly collided!

The two hijacked jets that sliced into the World Trade Center nearly crashed into each other before reaching New York City, according to a Federal Aviation Administration employee who works in the Nashua control facility. - Thanks to 'the Movement'

Were the planes switched at Stewart Airport?
As hijacked planes land - matching drone flights take off?

memory hole

Flight 11 - was there a plane switch in Boston?

Where did Flight 11 start? Almost everyone knows the answer: this was in Boston. But if you want it a bit more precise and ask for the specific gate the airplane left from, your interview partner most likely will just raise his eyebrows and present a counter-question: "Why do you want to know that?"

This is about to change. On closer inspection, the question for the gate is not trivial at all, but highly intriguing.

There are two answers: Gate 26 and Gate 32. And both answers resist any attempt to refute them.

Inmidst the chaos breaking out in the hours after the WTC and Pentagon attacks, between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m an airplane made an emergency landing at Cleveland Hopkins Airport . Rumours were going around that it was hijacked or had a bomb on board. The FBI evacuated the plane and searched it with bomb-sniffing dogs after the passengers had left. It turned out to be false alarm.

The plane - Delta flight1989 - was not hijacked, and there was no bomb.

However, a closer examination reveals a bunch of conflicting statements concerning Delta 1989. Neither the moment of landing, nor the number of the passengers, nor the location of the grounded plane is clear.

For every aspect of the incident there are two different versions. Not one or three or four versions, but two.

This article will prove that not one, but two planes made an emergency landing in Cleveland - in close succession. The proof is based on local newspaper and radio reports from September 11th and 12th (mainly from the Akron Beacon Journal and the Cleveland Plain Dealer), statements of eyewitnesses and internet postings in the morning of 9/11 (people were listening to the radio and immediately submitted the breaking news to the net). One of the flights was indeed Delta 1989. We don't know the identity of the other one, so we call it "Flight X"...

[The twin flight - Woody Box, Latest version]

Plane Lands In Cleveland - Bomb Feared Aboard
Reported by 9News Staff Web produced by: Liz Foreman
9/11/01 11:43:57 AM
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.

White said the plane had been moved to a secure area of the airport, and was evacuated.

United identified the plane as Flight 93. The airline did not say how many people were aboard the flight.

United said it was also "deeply concerned" about another flight, Flight 175, a Boeing 767, which was bound from Boston to Los Angeles.

On behalf of the airline CEO James Goodwin said: "The thoughts of everyone at United are with the passengers and crew of these flights. Our prayers are also with everyone on the ground who may have been involved.

"United is working with all the relevant authorities, including the FBI, to obtain further information on these flights," he said. - Via Rense.com

Original story pulled [factually incorrect or cover-up?]

Just like the Pentagon, Yet more construction to hide the operation?

United Airlines Flight 93 had been scheduled to take off at 8:01 a.m.

Now it was sitting on the tarmac, waiting for clearance to depart for San Francisco. Tucked into a flatland from which the New York skyline shone in the distance, Newark International Airport was ringed with new construction.

Two days earlier, a fire had started at one of the sites, briefly closing the airport. Flights already delayed by construction around an overtaxed airport had backed up even further.

- Flight 93: Forty lives, one destiny

Flight 93

Testimony from flight 1989 passenger?

After our emergency landing, our plane was directed to go to an isolated area of the airport, and we waited for over two hours in quarantine before FBI agents and bomb sniffing dogs came out to the plane. Just after we landed, the pilot gave us permission to make one very brief telephone call before we were banned from any further telephone use. The sixty or so passengers were thus able to gather some alarming details of the unbelievable fates of the other two LA-bound planes and the collapse of the World Trade Center towers, the suicide bombing of the Pentagon as well as reports of other plane crashes in PA and LA (LA proved unfounded) before we were cut off from any further communication. Unfortunately, all this information only added to the alarm and confusion we felt as we waited for over two hours far away from the gates of the airport.

Finally, a caravan of cars bearing FBI and Treasury agents and bomb sniffing dogs approached our airplane. About twenty or so armed FBI agents and police officers boarded the plane and said there were concerns about our flight and that they were taking precautions to rule out any further danger. We finally were allowed off the plane, told to take all of our personal items and leave everything at the edge of the tarmac. While our personal effects were examined we were taken to a secure building at the airport where for three hours we were interrogated at length about any unusual or suspicious activities we observed at Logan that morning or during our flight. We were all alarmed and distraught about the dribs and drabs of information we were slowly getting from our telephone calls (none of us was able to see a TV or listen to a radio) and feeling unbelievably lucky to be alive. - Traveling on Delta Flight 1989 on 9/11

The news reported that the plane landed because of a suspected bomb on board but they haven't released anyone that was on that plane.

They closed NASA and transported everyone that was on the plane there for questioning.

They are going through the plane and luggage with a fine toothed comb.

The original flight plan was from Boston to LA.

They closed all exits from the freeway to get into the airport and even bus drivers were told that if they attempted to exit, they would be shot.

People that were already at the airport were forced to walk for miles to get transportation home because they were not even allowed to remove their cars from the parking lots.

My husband works for the company that does mechanic work on the busses that run to and from the car rental lots and the airport and the drivers came over the raid the coke and water machines so they could at least offer those poor people walking something to drink. - rumour?

Flight X : Was there a 5th plane? Was it a Command plane?

Many people remember the broadcast media reporting a fifth hijacked airplane for a short time in the morning of September 11. Distingishing it from other "fifth" airplanes on September 11 like a Korean Airlines jet which was diverted to Alaska, and also from some "fifth" airplanes reported in the days after the attacks (allegedly attempted or stalled hijackings), the Fifth Plane I'm talking about has four characteristics:

1) it was widely broadcasted between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m., even abroad;

2) it was said to be hijacked;

3) it was heading for Camp David/Washington D.C., but was distingished from UA 93;

4) it vanished from the news as if it never had existed, without any explanation. - A 5th Plane?

did they deliberatly make this plane invisible?

American Airlines
Flight 11 [Boeing 767]

United Airlines Flight 175
[Boeing 767]

American Airlines
Flight 77 [Boeing 757]

Flight 93
[Boeing 757-200.]

left Boston's Logan Airport at 7:59 a.m. for Los Angeles

8:46 a.m.

left Boston's Logan Airport at 7:58 a.m for Los Angeles

9:03 a.m.

left Dulles Airport
8:10 a.m. for Los Angeles

hit the Pentagon:
9:40 a.m.

Left Newark Int. 8:42 a.m.
for San Francisco

crashed in Pennsylvania: 10:37 a.m.

the Radio Hijacker Plane (RHP) and the Fifth Plane (FP)

Approximate Location
25 miles NE of Youngstown/Ohio
Screams from Flight X (RHP)
First hijacker radio message from Flight X (RHP)
Last hijacker radio message from Flight X (RHP)
80 miles NW of Washington
Flight X (FP) is heading Washington
50 miles NW of Washington
Flight X (FP) is intercepted by fighters
Cleveland Airport
Flight X is forced to land


(1) This is based on the assumption that the RHP was first flying in the radar shadow of Delta 1989, i.e., it flew along the same path. USA Today relates details of the Delta 1989 path. And when UA 93 made his turn at 9:36, Delta 1989 was told to stay away from it. It was just 15 miles away at this moment.

(2) 9/11 report, p.41

The Cleveland Airport Mystery

Big Question: When did it take off?

Military vets Group doubts official 911 story

A group of military and civilian US pilots, under the chairmanship of Colonel Donn de Grand, after deliberating non-stop for 72 hours, has concluded that the flight crews of the four passenger airliners, involved in the September 11th tragedy, had no control over their aircraft

In a detailed press communiqu�the inquiry stated: "The so-called terrorist attack was in fact a superbly executed military operation carried out against the USA, requiring the utmost professional military skill in command, communications and control. It was flawless in timing, in the choice of selected aircraft to be used as guided missiles and in the coordinated delivery of those missiles to their pre-selected targets."

The report seriously questions whether or not the suspect hijackers, supposedly trained on Cessna light aircraft, could have located a target dead-on 200 miles from take off point. It further throws into doubt their ability to master the intricacies of the instrument flight rules (IFR) in the 45 minutes from take off to the point of impact. Colonel de Grand said that it would be impossible for novices to have taken control of the four aircraft and orchestrated such a terrible act requiring military precision of the highest order.

A member of the inquiry team, a US Air Force officer who flew over 100 sorties during the Vietnam war, told the press conference: "Those birds (commercial airliners) either had a crack fighter pilot in the left seat, or they were being maneuvered by remote control."

In evidence given to the enquiry, Captain Kent Hill (retd.) of the US Air Force, and friend of Chic Burlingame, the pilot of the plane that crashed into the Pentagon, stated that the US had on several occasions flown an unmanned aircraft, similar in size to a Boeing 737, across the Pacific from Edwards Air Force base in California to South Australia. According to Hill it had flown on a pre programmed flight path under the control of a pilot in an outside station. - [2nd hand source]

A witness in the street: [?]

"A guy was saying it was a Gulfstream G4 or a 737 with wingtips or something like that....

I know it sounds crappy, but it was something along those lines but this guy was, like, really obnoxiously knowledgable about it..."

35mb MOV file: Camera planet original 911 feed

911 video shocks sacremento citizens

Is she talking about the 1st plane? Possibly a Gulfsteam G4...hmmm

NetJets, a subsidiary of Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway. Operates a quarter-million flights annually to 140 countries; has affiliated programs in Europe and the Middle East. Its fleet includes hundreds of aircraft ranging from seven-seat Cessna Citations to 18-seat Boeing Business Jets. - executive skyguide

NetJets- they have a lot of other planes too!
Like High performance 737's

Advanced-technology wing devices such as this winglet, shown here on the wing of a Boeing 737-800, help make airplanes quieter in flight.

winglets - 737 technical site

Is the plane an early version of the Boeing 767 tanker?

airforce-technology globalsecurity

Boeing wins Italian bid military 767s
Order for 4 air-refueling tankers a boost for struggling programs Tuesday, July 10, 2001


dodgy dealing between Boeing and Air Force

July 14, 2003 - two years still no dice, why? Boeing waits for Congressional OK of 767 lease plan

A Fuel laden plane = Big bang = Desired effect...Shock & Awe

a cover-up?

right in your face!

why replace old planes?

Air Force Arguments Regarding KC-135 Corrosion. The Air Force has taken the position that its Economic Service Life Study (ESLS) was conceptually flawed because it did not adequately predict fatigue and corrosion problems in the current KC-135 tanker fleet.

When published in February 2001, the ESLS stated that the KC-135 fleet would be ?structurally viable until 2040.?

Because airframe corrosion and fatigue can directly affect the safety of flight of any aircraft, their mitigation can be a matter of strong concern to the fleet manager and inaccurate or inadequate predictions can add significant unanticipated costs to the maintenance of aircraft. source

Is this white dot a Big-bird?

That's a big bird...

are the Jets using a Laser guided system to home in on the WTC towers...?

The Loral Secret Of 9-11 By Dr. Stefan G. E. Grossmann

Is this picture for real?

Now look at the 'scratches of light ' effect above the planes nose
- similar to the antennea aren't they?
What is the source of this picture???

The two blade antenna (CIRCLED IN YELLOW) are not normal (Their reflections makes it looks like a last minute add on.) for this type plane. They are VHF (too large for UHF) antennas used to control the replacement autopilot package.

This looks like a remote control package on this aircraft. What you are looking at is not the normal configuration of a commercial aircraft. - source


command and control from the air?

Boeing 767
Q: do all the recon planes have 4 engines?

The E-8C Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System is a joint Air Force - Army program. The Joint STARS uses a multi-mode side looking radar to detect, track, and classify moving ground vehicles in all conditions deep behind enemy lines. The aircraft is the only airborne platform in operation that can maintain realtime surveillance over a corps-sized area of the battlefield. - Air Force link

A: Nope!

What is this???

A command plane???

E-10 MC2A

The Boeing E-10 MC2A is a military aircraft currently under development as replacement for the E-3 Sentry, E-8 Joint STARS, and EC-135 aircraft in US service. It is based on a Boeing 767 airframe. In 2003, Boeing was awarded a $126 million contract for the development of the aircraft, which is expected to be complete by the end of 2005.

MC2A is a temporary designation, which stands for Multi-Sensor Command and Control Aircraft. The MC2A is intended to be the ultimate theater-wide combat control center. It will integrate it's own air- and ground-search radar with space-based radar, air and space-based ELINT/SIGINT assets, and space-based IMINT satellites. It will be the central command authority for all air, land, and sea forces in a combat theater. The E-10 may also be utilized as a command center for unmanned combat air vehicles. - source

[Remember the military lie about the status & readiness of military equipment]

Rummy Pulls a fast one...

"Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld claims that he was in the Pentagon giving a lecture to members of Congress about the need for America to "be prepared for the unexpected" pertaining to future terrorist attacks. As the 9/11 plot unfolded, Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claims he was effectively out of the loop while inside the Pentagon until it was struck at 9:38 am. That comes from his testimony to the 9/11 Commission on March 25, 2004, while under oath.

On September 11, 2001, the Air Force was in its second day of annual wargame drills, titled VIGILANT GUARDIAN, designed to test national air response systems, which incidentally involved hijacking scenarios. In addition the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) which is staffed by military and CIA personnel, and is in charge of most American spy satellites, was running a drill for the scenario of an errant aircraft crashing into its headquarters. NRO headquarters also happens to be located just four miles from Washington's Dulles airport where Flight 77 (the flight said to have hit the Pentagon) originated..."


Is it possible that the gate 26, or gate 32 flight from Logan Airport was posing as a hijacked airliner in one of these 9/11 wargames? Moreover, we now must examine the NRO emergency evacuation drill running that same morning. NRO spokesman Art Haubold told UPI,

"It was just a coincidence. It wasn't an anti-terrorism exercise. It was an emergency response exercise. It was just a strange coincidence". The NRO's internal war-gaming division planned the drill.

Was the NRO's war-gaming division working in conjunction with NORAD and/or the Joint Chiefs of Staff that morning? On page 5 of former White House counter-terrorism official Richard Clarke's new book, "Against All Enemies", he mentions a war game titled VIGILANT WARRIOR. Is this yet another wargame running on 9/11? In addition, yet another drill titled NORTHERN VIGILANCE, was running on 9/11 simulating an air attack coming from Russia. Just how many war games were running on September 11, 2001?

The NRO is, effectively, the "eyes of the world". With the majority of American spy satellites at its fingertips, it can reasonably be assumed that NRO headquarters was an indispensable resource to NORAD and the Air Force from 8:28 when Flight 11 made its unplanned 100-degree turn over Pennsylvania, until 9:38 when it is said to have struck the Pentagon. The NRO claims as soon as the real world events "began to unfold" the drill was called off and all but the most essential personnel were sent home. (UPI, Aug 22, 2002) Read that last sentence again.

Why was the NRO sending home personnel during what was likely the biggest military crisis on American soil in recent history? Who were the "most essential" personnel and what did those individuals do as events unfolded?"
Michael Kane - June 8th 2004

Joint military exercises on and around the WTC / Pentagon attacks

There is more behind the "Saudi-Laden-flight" story, than just a political cover-up,
or a planted distraction, as many 9/11 truthseekers suggested.
Furthermore there is also more behind the so called "cover-up" strategy of 9/11, often described as "incompetence theory".

What if the "incompetence" was already scripted from the beginning into the so called "military operation" of 9/11?

And what was the real role of all military anti-terror and war drills before 9/11 and during the week of Sep11th?

lost war drills - Ewing 2001 - full document backed up

1 ) MILITARY EXERCISE NORTHERN VIGILANCE: Transferred most of the combat ready interceptors and possibly many AWACS from the north east into northen Canada and Alaska. This explains,in part, why there were only eight ( 8 ) combat interceptors in the NE on 9/11.

2 ) NON-MILITARY BIOWARFARE EXERCISE TRIPOD II: FEMA arrived in NYC on 10 Sept 2001 to set up the command post for FEMA, NEW YORK CITY AND DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on Manhattan's PIER 29. This shows our masters are loving, they made a strong effort to minimize the required deaths. This was probably forced on them by the CFR, nice guys who must occasionally kill innocent people.

3 ) WARGAME EXERCISE, VIGILANT GUARDIAN: [simulated Defense?] This exercise simulated hi-jacked planes in the northeast sector. The 9/11 commission made only mention of this single exercise and lied about its purpose. The commisssion said its purpose was to intercept Russian bombers.

4 ) WARGAME EXERCISE, VIGILANT WARRIOR: [simulated attack?] This exercise simulated hi-jacked planes in the northeast sector.

5 ) WARGAME EXERCISE NORTHERN GUARDIAN: This exercise simulated hi-jacked planes in the northeast sector.

At the time of the real hi-jacking there were as many as 22 hi-jacked aircraft on NORAD's radar screen.

Some of these drills were "Live Fly" exercises were actual aircraft, likely flown by remote control were simulating hi-jacked aircraft. Some of the drills electronically added the hi-jacked aircraft into the system. All this as the real hi-jackings began.

NORAD could not tell the difference between the seventeen bogus blips and the five actual hi-jacked aircraft blips. Cheney could. source

Operation Amalgam Virgo

was the code name of a wargame to be played out by NORAD, that simulated the simultaneous hijacking of two planes in the United States, and this was supposedly then in the planning or so the 911 Commission in Washington DC was informed on 23rd May, 2003.

A NORAD official described how scriptwriters for these drills included the idea of hijacked aircraft being used as weapons: threats of killing hostages or crashing were left to the scriptwriters to invoke creativity and broaden the required response, explained Major General Craig McKinley, to the 9/11 Commission. Is this part of the exercise? was the first response of General Arnold at NORAD on hearing of the hijackings.
9-11 Commission Hearing 2003-05-23

It seems that a clutch of Muslim hijackers could have been written into the script to help invoke creativity for the wargamers. - Nick Kollerstrom Oil Empire resources

AMALGAM VIRGO 01. Amalgam means a blend of many elements.

In Astrology, the zodiac sign for Virgo takes place from August 23 thru September 22. 01 is obviously for the year 2001. The events of the terrorist attack on America took place September 2001, during the sign of Virgo.

- 9-11: NORAD, FAA, Pentagon MADE It Happen

Were all the jets fitted with a remote control override system?

Were the WTC Towers emmiting a carrier homing signal,
one which was strong enough to knock out the emergency communications?

Did WTC 7, which housed the New York Offices of Emergncy Management & had 2 newly reinforced floors for the CIA, contain a Control and command centre for this covert hijacking?

Was it deliberately destroyed to hide this evidence?

Paragraph #1371 (on page 284)
The OEM's headquarters was located at 7 WTC. Some questioned locating it both so close to a previous terrorist target and on the 23rd floor of a building (difficult to access should elevators become inoperable). There was no backup site.

Paragraph #1419 (on page 293)
OEM Initial Response By 8:48, officials in OEM headquarters on the 23rd floor of 7 WTCjust to the north of the North Towerbegan to activate the Emergency Operations Center by calling such agencies as the FDNY, NYPD, Department of Health, and the Greater Hospital Association and instructing them to send their designated representatives to the OEM.

also worthy of note:

Paragraph #1477
...At about 9:57, an EMS paramedic approached the FDNY Chief of Department and advised that an engineer in front of 7 WTC had just remarked that the Twin Towers in fact were in imminent danger of a total collapse.

[Taken from the search of the 911 commission report by Ewing 2001]

Were the military exercises in place to confuse and muddle operatives?

With two teams -
one thinking the whole scenario is an exercise? while one knows it is for real [without knowledge of the other team]?

Were the remote flyers the ones designated to think they were taking part in an exercise?
Were their locations a secret?

Were these remote flyers told to play-up the scenario to test responses?
IE -switch off transponders and fly erratically?

While sitting in a top secret location in a percieved mock up situation, blind, at their terminals -
Were they even aware they were actually flying planes into the buildings?

Was the failure in response another angle, another team?
If so, were they told to give the target a head start?

What really went on with the 'crashed' flight 93 in Skanksville, Pittsburgh ?

"The question I heard asked was: 'Who has the authority to order a commercial jetliner shot down by the military?' " Pence said.

However, the congressional leaders soon learned that the plane had already crashed...

The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) issued a statement denying that United Flight 93 had been shot down by U.S. military aircraft.

Some witnesses reported that the plane was flying upside down for a time before the crash; others said they heard up to three loud booms before the jetliner went down.-Post-Gazette

Was the shootdown from one end- a failure [remote flyers perceived wargame] & a termination of his 'training exercise'-

While on the other hand [the pilots perspective], a desperate renegade measure, acting on his own judgements, perplexed, after received no orders?

see: Is the Rick Gibney Flight 93 Story a Hoax?

Rumsfeld admits shootdown orders never reached pilots...

GORELICK: May I ask one more question, Mr. Chairman? We can't go into the content of the PDDs and the SEIBs here. And I can't even characterize them in order to ask you the next question that I would ask. So let me ask you this: Was it your understanding that the NORAD pilots who were circling over Washington D.C. that morning had indeed received a shoot-down order?

RUMSFELD: When I arrived in the command center, one of the first things I heard, and I was with you, was that the order had been given and that the pilots -- correction, not the pilots necessarily, but the command had been given the instructions that their pilots could, in fact, use their weapons to shoot down a commercial airliners filled with our people in the event that the aircraft appeared to be behaving in a threatening way and an unresponsive way.

GORELICK: Now, you make a distinction there between the command and the pilots. Was it your understanding that the pilots had received that order?

RUMSFELD: I'm trying to get in time because...

MYERS: Well, I think -- my understanding, I've talked to General Eberhart, commander now of NORAD, and I think he's briefed the staff. And I think what he told the staff, what he told me, as I recall, was that the pilots did -- at the appropriate point when the authority to engage civilian airliners was given, that the pilots knew that fairly quickly. I mean, it went down through the chain of command.

RUMSFELD: It was on a threat conference call that it was given, and everybody heard it simultaneously. The question then would be -- the reason I am hesitant is because we went through two or three iterations of the rules of engagement. And in the end, we ended up delegating that authority to, at the lowest level, I believe, to two stars.

[General] MYERS: Right... -AFPN

"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" Laura Temyer of Hooversville "Aside from paralyzing potential attackers or noncombatants like a long-range stun gun, directed-energy weapons could fry the electronics of missiles and roadside bombs, developers say, or even disable a vehicle in a high-speed chase. " - Directed energy weapons

Georgetta and Alvin Guynn: (Vanderbilt, Fayette County.)

We looked up and there was this big jet going overhead and it was pretty low and we could not hear the engines.

It was like they were off.

And then about a minute or two later, we got some binoculars and we were looking through them and there was all this smoke in the air and we knew it crashed.

Jim Stop: (Indian Lake, three miles)

Jim Stop of Somerset was fishing at the Indian Lake marina, about three miles from the crash site, when he looked up and saw the plane overhead.

I heard the engine whine and scream, Stop said.

He then heard an explosion and saw a fireball. source [see: ... and kiss the official UA 93 theory good-bye! by John Doe II]

For more background on the history of
remote controlled flight, pilotless aircraft & advanced technology

Flight 93 cockpit recording is a hoax

I will stick my neck out and declare it a hoax: Jurors in the al-Moussaoui trial were shown alleged cockpit voice recordings of the final stages of the hijacking of United Airlines flight 93. It was played to the court accompanied by a video showing gruesome pictures of charred bodies, so it was intended to stir emotions rather than to provide hard evidence. The defence team's objections to the type of evidence were over-ruled.

It took the authorities a long time to come up with evidence from the flight recorders which they had earlier stated were not recoverable. It seems to me they still did a rather sloppy job when replacing the real recordings with this dramatic production. Here is why:

First of all, Cockpit voice recordings and recordings of air traffic communications are separated, yet in this case they appear together. I only have the transcript to go by since the actual recordings have not been released. I cannot establish from the transcript at what volume certain parts of it appear. It is possible that the crew instead of using headsets would have switched air traffic communications onto the cabin loud speakers so that they would also be audible in the cockpit. It does, however, not explain why we can hear communications from air traffic control and another plane on the frequency, but we cannot hear the communications by flight 93 crew to air traffic control, although those should have been a lot more audible.

According to the transcript air traffic control received a communication that there was a bomb on board, but we do not hear the pilots stating so. Air traffic control ask another plane on the frequency whether this is what they heard and they confirm. This means that the pilots must have stated so on the frequency. Air traffic control could not have gauged this information from the transponder code selected by the pilots as this would not be accessible to the crew of the third plane nor would it be specific. There is a transponder code for hijacking, but not for a bomb on board. Air traffic control could not have taken this information from what the hijackers said either, since to transmit a message to air traffic control the pilot has to press a push-to-talk button and the noise cancelling microphone will not pick up anything from the background.

However, let's assume, unlikely as this is, that they did pick up what the hijackers said according to the transcript, namely: "Ladies and Gentlemen. Here the captain, please sit down keep remaining seating. We have a bomb on board. So sit." Here the script writers for the audio/video presentation made their biggest blunder. According to the script those remarks were made in Arabic. Air traffic could have got them translated, although not instantaneously, and they would have had to figure out what language they were dealing with first, but there is no chance that the crew of Executive Jet 956, the third plane on the frequency, could have understood those remarks.

The script writers made sure that there is plenty of Arabic in the recording to firmly establish the origin of the hijackers. They also add plenty of Bismillahs and Allahu akbars to show that these are Muslim fanatics. With the above quoted remark they have, however, gone over the top by making the translation sound foreign as well. Either they had a very incompetent translator or they weren't sure whether they should script this remark in Arabic or English - "keep remaining seating" sure does not sound like a good translation.

There is a problem with this opening sentence being in Arabic. From the content one would assume that it is addressed to the plane's passengers as it starts with "Ladies and Gentlemen." From the context it is said in the cabin upon first encounter with the captain. You can't talk from the flight deck to the passengers except over the intercom system, so it is unclear who the addressees of these sentences are meant to be. But neither crew nor passengers would have understood Arabic. If the remarks were made in conversation to fellow hijackers then they would hardly begin with "Ladies and Gentlemen" nor would they bother to inform them that they had a bomb on board.

Later in the tape we are treated with some more drama which would suit a Hollywood movie but not the real world of flying. It seems the hijackers discovered that there was a fight in the cabin. To control the situation one of them suggests to cut off the oxygen. What a folly! Breathing at high altitude in modern aircraft is achieved through cabin pressurisation not through the supply of oxygen. You can depressurise the aircraft, of course, but this would be gradual not sudden. And if you did it would affect both the passengers and the crew, so the hijackers would then need oxygen to cope with the thin depressurised air on the flight deck.

But we are made to believe that the hijackers were stupid. They tried to take control of the plane but didn't really know how to fly it. One of them is heard to instruct the other with short commands like "pull it down", "up, down, up, down", "down, push, push, push, push", "hey, give it to me". In the end, I suppose this explains why the flight crashed just like it happens on Microsoft flight simulator when you mess about with a 757. To emphasise the loss of control they suddenly all repeatedly say "Allahu akbar", but not the Shahadah.

Nice try, I say, but there is no doubt in my mind that, once more, we are being taken for a ride.


There is an unofficial transcript of Flight 93 available which was released by AirDisasters.com, not by the government. In that transcript the remarks about the bomb are made in English by the hijackers and a little later made again by the captain. A careful comparison of both texts reveals numerous discrepancies to the wording and the sequence of what is being said. There is no way both can be correct, ergo somebody is making things up. If Moussaoui's defence team don't tear this evidence to shreds, then they are working for the prosecution.

back up of 2 transcripts


Captain Wardrobes

Down with Murder inc.