A reasonable analysis of the evidence. *Last revised Sept-9-2011
In order to find out the truth, I will examine the evidence like a detective trying to solve a murder case. I will first examine the reports of eyewitnesses, then examine photos of the crash site, and other evidence. We will also look at some of the questions that people have about the flight and the crash that has led to several conspiracy theories.
Here are parts of several articles giving details and eyewitness accounts:
Ok, we have a pretty good picture of the last few minutes of United Flight 93, as viewed from the ground. It descended quickly, was traveling very fast and low, banked hard to the right, flipped over completely, and nosedived straight into the ground. On impact there was a huge fireball that rose up about 200 feet followed by a mushroom cloud. Afterwards, there were only small pieces of the plane and its contents to be found anywhere.
About the loud bang noises, some people said the engines were very loud, others that the engines did not sound right, some that they made a loud bang, and some said it made no sound. Either some people were farther away than others, or the plane’s engines were cutting off and on, which was probably what caused the loud bangs. If you recall, there were witnesses who said the plane's engines were making the loud bang noise just before they cut off; or perhaps off and on with a bang. Look at the bold type in the last quote above.
PhotosNow lets look at photos of the crash site to determine if they agree with what the witnesses said.
The obvious question at this point is: Where is the plane wreckage?
Most plane crashes are with the plane trying to make a landing, even if it is in the woods. Few if any planes have ever impacted at a 90 degree angle. The force of the impact with the huge explosion of the jet fuel caused the plane to burst into a billion pieces. Volunteers have spent countless hours walking the field and the woods gathering up mostly small pieces of the plane and its contents.
|Only a few pieces were more than a couple of feet long.|
Get THIS WEB SITE as a Kindle eBook on Amazon. The Truth About United Flight 93
Now available as an eBOOK in ALL FORMATS at Smashwords 99 cents
Ok, so the crash site appears to agree with the eyewitnesses except for one thing; how could some of the plane be found deep in the ground while some of it is miles away? There was debris that landed as far as 8 miles from the crash site. How could that have happened? Conspiracy advocates say that this proves the plane had to be hit by a missile while still high in the sky. Also, there was part of one engine that was found about a mile from the crash site.
When that plane hit the ground it began to go into the ground, but at the same time it began to collapse like an accordion until the explosion. The blast pushed some of the parts even farther into the ground, but blasting the parts above the ground out into the air.
The Little Boy atomic bomb that destroyed Hiroshima in 1945 was equal to about 13,000 tons of TNT. (1) It is estimated that there was still 18.75 tons of jet fuel on Flight 93 when it crashed. Jet fuel is ten times more powerful than TNT (24). So the jet fuel was at least equal to 187 tons of TNT, significantly less than an atomic bomb but certainly powerful enough to destroy a plane and send small pieces of it 8 miles away. The explosion was so powerful it shook the entire town of Shanksville and was even felt ten miles away. Could a missile hitting the plane in the air do that? No!
It may have been even more powerful than 187 tons of TNT. The explosion created a huge fireball, which shows that the blast was not under the ground, that is it was not after the plane had gone into the ground, but was at the surface.
In the minds of some, the fact that the blast destroyed the plane and vaporized the passengers is evidence of a government conspiracy. They raise nonsensical questions based on their lack of ability to evaluate the evidence. Believe it or not, some of these people claim that a missile was shot at the crash site and, rather than exploding in the crater, was deflected and hit the trees, as an attempt to explain how the trees got burned, other than how they actually got burned, which was from the huge fireball when the plane impacted the ground.
Was It Shot Down By A Missile?
The most prevailing conspiracy theory is that the plane was shot down by a missile. First notice that not one single eyewitness said they saw a missile. Even though the vast majority of the eyewitnesses are in virtual total agreement, a handful of accounts by mostly non-witnesses are somehow "proof" to the conspiracy belivers that the government was behind the 9-11 attacks. So now we will examine some of the less reliable accounts.
First, notice that Mayor Stuhl does not believe his friends, that they heard a missile. He makes that very clear. Notice also that these two fellows are NOT eyewitnesses. Nowhere does it say they SAW the plane or a missile. They were obviously indoors and heard the plane's engines approaching the crash site and they did not immediately recognize the sound as being a Boeing 757 flying low. Their first thought upon hearing the engines was that it was a missile, but that certainly does not mean that they heard a missile, they merely thought they heard a missile. This is not even close to being evidence of a missile. When you hear a noise, your mind immediately goes to the closest possible identification, based upon past experience.
Again, this guy did not see anything until he ran outside and saw the fire. This is probably one of the same guys who was unnamed in the previous quote.
A woman hears a bang and she thinks it was shot down. That is NOT evidence. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE HERE! Her story about the state police is just like the other lies being told, that the Jews were told to stay home on 9-11 so they would not be killed when the towers collapsed. There is always someone or two who make outlandish claims, perhaps to get attention.
Another more reliable witness boldly claims the plane was NOT SHOT DOWN!
The White Plane
Another element of the "evidence" is the presence of a white plane that flew over the crash site in an effort to see the crash. Lee Purbaugh, one of the two people who actually saw the impact, was one of those who saw the white plane.
Perhaps the conspiracy believers' best witness is Susan Mcelwain, a 51-year-old teacher of special needs children.
First, just how does a 51-year-old school teacher become an expert at identifying military aircraft? Notice that she said it was "traveling real fast." If it was traveling real fast just 40 feet above her head, it would have been nothing more than a blur, yet she gave a very detailed description of it. Are we to believe that the military has planes so secret that no photos have ever been taken of them? They had some at one time, the stealth bomber and stealth fighter, but they were located at the secret testing base at area 51, a long way from Pennsylvania. And the air force never would have flown them in broad daylight just 40 feet above a town so people could clearly see them!!
The FBI at first did not know of this plane, but as they investigated they learned about a Falcon 20 business plane that had been asked to look and see if they could find out what happened to United Flight 93. To the conspiracyists, the white plane was an unmarked military aircraft that shot down Flight 93. Several witnesses saw the white plane, and the FBI clearly acknowledged its presence, but because the FBI did not know of the plane right from the beginning of the investigation, that is somehow evidence that they lied and were trying to cover it up!
Even though she insists that she did not see a Falcon 20, her description is very close to it.
However, her description as given above, does exactly fit a Learjet 55.
The only legitimate question here is why the white plane was not ordered to land like all other planes? Perhaps it was but decided to follow Flight 93 to see if it was going to crash, since it could be seen flying low and rocking back and forth. Or, perhaps it was asked to land, then someone decided that it could be useful to locate flight 93 visually; and after flight 93 dropped off the radar, to see if it could spot the wreckage. Oh! No! Could it be true? NO MYSTERY HERE, NO SMOKING GUN, not even a smoking BB gun! What follows is more of their supposed evidence.
The Indian Lake Witness
There is one witness that is clearly lying He is John Fleegle the manager of the Indian Lake Marina that is THREE MILES away from the crash site:
This statement is fine as it is, but in another report he makes statements that show he is lying:
Since the Indian Lake Marina is three miles away from the crash site, how could he have arrived within one minute of the crash? No, he did not arrive before anyone else. As we have already learned, there were people who lived within blocks of the crash who were there before him, and there were even two people working in the area who actually witnessed the crash. So he is clearly lying.
Now notice his statement about the plane. Fleegle said the plane flew up in the direction of the sun so that no one could look up and clearly see it. Does this guy actually expect us to believe this yarn? There were people looking up at flight 93 from ALL DIRECTIONS. The only way to have the sun blocking your view is if you are looking east; since it was just after 10 a.m. Those people who were looking north toward the crash, or looking south or west toward the crash, were not looking into the sun, so they did not have their view of any other plane blocked by the glare of the sun. Yet, this guy is saying that the pilot intentionally flew in such a way as to prevent him from getting a clear look at the plane. This is laughable. Fleegle was just a spec of nothing on the ground to that pilot! He must like being interviewed, and keeps coming up with stories to tell.
In the same quote, he continues with more outlandish lies. He quotes what a retired Air Force man told him. If this statement is real, then he too is incredibly stupid, but I do not believe that a career Air Force man would be this stupid, so the following statement is just another of John Fleegle's tall tails:
This is laughable. If you are going to shoot down a fighter jet, then you do need to jam its radar so it cannot detect the missile as it approaches because the pilot will know the missile is approaching and take defensive action if you do not jam its radar. But passenger jets DO NOT HAVE RADAR THAT CAN DETECT INCOMING MISSILES! HA! HA! HA! "This is your captain speaking. Please buckle your seatbelts. I will be taking evasive maneuvers because of incoming missiles!"
As further "proof" that flight 93 was shot down, they present this under-whelming bit of evidence:
Oh my! What big pea-brains they have! First, that area was a military flight corridor, so if there was a military plane in the area it would have been NORMAL operation! Especially since we were UNDER ATTACK! But, consider this: a sonic boom is only caused by a plane going at mach 1 or faster, which is 800 miles per hour. At that speed, it would have traveled the 60 miles to Shanksville in only 4.5 minutes, so it would have arrived in the crash area by 9:27 a.m., more than 30 minutes before flight 93 arrived. It would have intercepted flight 93 within 10 or 15 minutes, hundreds of miles west of Shanksville. Again, no actual evidence here!
But in their infinite stupidity, they offer even more amazing evidence. There was yet another plane piloted by a local farmer who was in the air near flight 93. Because he was ordered to land it is supposed to mean that they were going to shoot down Flight 93:
There you have it ladies and gentlemen! WHAT MORE PROOF COULD THERE BE?! No, there is NO EVIDENCE HERE! Flight 93 was flying up and down, left then right, so it is NOT strange that the little plane was told to get as far away from Flight 93 as possible. If United Flight 93 was traveling at 500 miles per hour, it was traveling 8.33 miles per minute. Which means it could travel a mile in 7.5 seconds. So it was VERY DANGEROUS to be anywhere near that plane. They were also under a no-fly order; at 9:45 a.m, all planes were ordered to land, which is just 18 minutes before Flight 93 crashed. So it is not strange that they were ordered to land! Duh!
Flying Mail and Other Debris
The conspiracyists say, "how could any explosion send a piece of mail 8 miles? It must have fallen from the plane long before it crashed." Lots of things happen you cannot fully explain, such as when a tornado throws a piece of straw into the center of a telephone pole. Tornados have been known to pick up objects and set them down miles away totally unharmed, even live people! It happens more than you think, but it reasonably should not ever happen. Read this info from USA Today Weather Guys blog:
There are web sites and books about the oddities of tornados:
So mail being sent 8 miles by a huge explosion is certainly no stranger than mail being sent 100s of miles by a tornado. Not only did items get sent a long distance, there were other oddities with flight 93, just like what takes place with tornados. For example, a neck tie was found still tied, but with no one in it. (17)
So there is no proof or even evidence that points to flight 93 being shot down by a missile, it DID NOT HAPPEN.
The conspiracyists even use something as trivial as the red bandanas that the hijackers wore as evidence that it was not a real hijacking or that the government was behind it. They say that green is the color of Islam, so why would they wear red? The reason is because red is the color of martyrdom! Yes, it is true! If someone had faked the whole thing then they would most likely have used green bandanas, but red is evidence that it was not fake. It is not widely known that red is the color of martyrdom.
The Famous Restroom Phone Call
One of the passengers locked himself in a restroom and made a call to 911 emergency. Some sources say the call was short and he made no mention of white smoke, other sources say he claimed to see white smoke out the window after hearing a loud noise. My sources say that claim is false, but let us suppose for the sake of argument that he did hear a loud noise and see something out the window.
So what do we make of this call? The call was placed at 9:58 a.m., just 5 to 8 minutes before the plane crashed. With what we have learned thus far from the eyewitnesses, it is very likely that what he heard was one of the loud bangs that came from the plane's engines, whereupon he looked out the window and saw what he believed to be white smoke. Notice that it was "white" smoke. What he saw was likely what are called contrails, which are vapor trails. UPDATE: Checkout this web site with many contrail images from around the world: http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2012/03/jets-clouds-effects-ephemeral-sky-show.html
ALL their SUPPOSED evidence can be proven false and discarded by this same kind of reasonable analysis. But some people just WANT to believe in conspiracy, and they will continue to believe in it regardless of how much evidence points to the hijackers as the people who planned and executed the operation. These nuts are the kind of people who would not believe that we went to the Moon. Yes, it is true; there are many conspiracyists who believe that we FAKED THE MOON LANDING! They just don't have the ability to believe in anything. They are natural born disbelievers and spread their false conclusions throughout the world online.
I used to know one of these guys personally who believes that contrails that can be seen trailing behind some planes is the government spreading chemicals on the general population of this country. In truth, they are just vapor trails, actual clouds that are created by moisture in the air and form because of the plane passing through the air. It is truly sad that some people are that stupid, but they are.
In 1972 a home video was being made when a small asteroid streaked across the sky, leaving a vapor trail. I have seen the video on TV several times. Here is a still taken from that video:
Oh no! The government is even sending rocks from outer space with chemicals! We are DOOMED.
IF THIS INFORMATION is not enough evidence for you, here is PROOF that a hot fire can soften steal beams, which is what happened when the jets impacted the World Trade Center.
Here is an email from a guy who read this article (2-18-08):
Here is another email:
Here is another email:
Here is the newest email Sept. 4, 2011:
This article was written entirely by Michael D. Fortner, copyright 2007,2008,2009,2010,2011 all rights reserved. The author has a B.A. in communications (journalism), with a minor in history. He is certified in computer repair, and currently does IT repairs such as computers, TVs, medical equipment, etc.
Thanks, Have a nice year.
Bibliography is no longer available with the free online edition, but is only found in the ebooks or printed books, which can be purchased at amazon.com and many book sellers worldwide!
Send comments and questions to: ejpops at gmail dot com.