Was Flight 93 Jammed or Slammed?
GeorgeWashington Wed, 09/19/2007 - 6:23pm
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/09/was-flight-93-jammed-and-slammed.html
I've just come across evidence that Flight 93 may have been brought down with high-tech electronic jamming by the U.S. military.
Specifically, a new entry from Cooperative Research states:
John Fleegle, a manager at the Indian Lake Marina about 1.5 miles from where Flight 93 crashes, is indoors with some colleagues, watching the televised coverage of the World Trade Center attack. Then, as he later describes, “All of a sudden the lights flickered and we joked that maybe they were coming for us. Then we heard engines screaming close overhead. The building shook. We ran out, heard the explosion and saw a fireball mushroom,” following the crash. When he later describes this incident while on a training course in Atlanta, Fleegle will be told that what happened means Flight 93 “was shot down.” A man there who says he is a retired Air Force officer will tell Fleegle, “[W]hen your lights flickered, [it was because] they zap the radar frequency on everything before they shoot. Your lights didn’t flicker from the impact—your lights flickered because they zapped the radar system before they shot it.” However, William “Buck” Kernan, a retired four-star Army general, will dispute this claim, saying, “[R]egarding an aircraft engaging an airborne target having an electrical disruption on the ground, no, this would not be a result of lock on or any electromagnetic pulsing.” He will suggest it is “possible that overpressure from explosions could momentarily disrupt microwave connections or cause sensations on ground relays, wiring, etc.” that might result in the lights having flickered. [Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 14 September 2001.'); True lies (New York: Plume, 2004), 35-36] But, consistent with Fleegle’s allegation, a number of local residents—including military veterans—say they heard the sound of a missile overhead just before the time of the crash (see Just Before 10:06 a.m. September 11, 2001). Another local resident, Val McClatchey, will report her lights and phone going out around the time of the crash. [Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 11 September 2002.] According to Barry Lichty, the mayor of Indian Lake Borough, the town’s electricity goes out around this time. He later learns that the plane crash had disrupted service to the borough. [Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, “Homes, Neighbors Rattled By Crash,” 12 September 2001.] Interestingly, one alternative theory later suggested is that Flight 93 could have been brought down using “electromagnetic interference” (see August 13, 2002). The US Air Force and Pentagon have in fact “conducted extensive research on ‘electronic warfare applications’ with the possible capacity intentionally to disrupt the mechanisms of an airplane in such a way as to provoke, for example, an uncontrollable dive.” [Independent, 8/13/2002]
Cooperative Research's August 13, 2002 entry, in turn, states:
The Independent carries a story entitled, “Unanswered Questions: The Mystery of Flight 93,” a rare critique of the official version of events around that plane’s crash. Most of the information is a summation of what was reported before. However, there is one interesting new theory. Theorizing why witnesses did not see smoke from the faltering plane, the article points to the 1996 research of Harvard academic Elaine Scarry, “showing that the Air Force and the Pentagon have conducted extensive research on ‘electronic warfare applications’ with the possible capacity to intentionally disrupt the mechanisms of an aeroplane in such a way as to provoke, for example, an uncontrollable dive. Scarry also reports that US Customs aircraft are already equipped with such weaponry; as are some C-130 Air Force transport planes. The FBI has stated that, apart from the enigmatic Falcon business jet, there was a C-130 military cargo plane within 25 miles of the passenger jet when it crashed (see September 14, 2001). According to the Scarry findings, in 1995 the Air Force installed ‘electronic suites’ in at least 28 of its C-130s—capable, among other things, of emitting lethal jamming signals.” [Independent, 8/13/2002]
This may explain why the fighter pilots who trailed Flight 93 denied shooting it down. Perhaps instead of being shot down, the military jammed Flight 93's controls, causing it to slam into the ground.
See also this story and this one.
On the other hand, if Flight 93 was hit with electronic jamming only, and not with a missile, why was there debris found miles from the crash site? The debris field tends to indicate that a missile slammed into the plane.
- GeorgeWashington's blog
- Login to post comments
How would this explain the debris field
Jamming Flight 93 and causing it to crash would not explain a debris field which purportedly covered 8 square miles. If it was jammed, causing a loss of control, the aircraft would have crashed in one spot, which the hole we are shown seems to indicate it could not have done.
I was thinking the same
I was thinking the same thing, but the information about the electromagnetic disturbance in the area is interesting nonetheless. We have two Air Force vets saying two different things, I wonder if there is a tie breaker out there to verify either statement.
--
The 9/11 Truth B-Team
debris field
Debris was not scattered over 8 sq. miles. There were initial reports that debris was found in Indian Lake, which people mistakenly thought was 8 miles away (because they used map programs which measure the route by car, not as the crow flies). Then some troll or sloppy researcher turned this into 8 SQUARE miles, which turned into the typical talking point of people like Fetzer (when they aren't arguing that there was no plane at all).
In fact, some debris scatter was detected in points up to 4 miles away, which suffices in strongly suggesting a mid-air break-up and hence a missile. An engine was 800-1000 yards away, it may have however rolled down a hill.
The smoking gun is the way the govt doesn't bother to explain this stuff, just sweeps it away. I think the strongest evidence suggesting a shootdown is the government 9/11 commission's deliberate changing of the crash time from 10:06 (according to a) all initial reports and b) the seismic report!) to 10:03, and the claim that the end of the cockpit voice recorder was cut off (by 1-4 minutes). What the hell would this be disguising? A failure of the passenger uprising? Or its success?
The electric disruption sounds like a possibility, but as you say - what explains mid-air breakup?
---
"Truth is not measured in mass appeal."
summeroftruth.org
Agree with Tony... The "hole" in Shanksville, does not jive...
with a fully intact 757 impacting the ground.
The finely scattered debris field does seem to indicate one or more bombs on the plane.
---
Link : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guEqg1SdMpE
---
Link : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSZG3a8F-YM
---
Weighing up the data and using my instincts seem to indicate that a missile had been fired to create the Shanksville crater and / or the subsequent grey mushroom cloud, but then the crater may have been caused by the engine falling to earth from a high altitude (making the cloud and crater separate events).
The debris is very important piece of the puzzle and until a real and full inquiry occurs, "Flight 93" will always be an enigma, requiring speculation.
I would never rule out an "operation northwoods" type scenario... Below are some "Northwood" quotes which I believe are relevant
---
(11) Sink ship near harbor entrance. Conduct funerals for mock-victims (may be lieu of (10)).
b. United States would respond by executing offensive operations to secure water and power supplies, destroying artillery and mortar emplacements which threaten the base.
c. Commence large scale United States military operations.
3. A "Remember the Maine" incident could be arranged in several forms:
a. We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba.
b. We could blow up a drone (unmanned) vessel anywhere in the Cuban waters. We could arrange to cause such incident in the vicinity of Havana or Santiago as a spectacular result of Cuban attack from the air or sea, or both. The presence of Cuban planes or ships merely investigating the intent of the vessel could be fairly compelling evidence that the ship was taken under attack. The nearness to Havana or Santiago would add credibility especially to those people that might have heard the blast or have seen the fire. The US could follow up with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US fighters to "evacuate" remaining members of the non-existent crew. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.
---
8. It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.
a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.
b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will being transmitting on the international distress frequency a "MAY DAY" message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO radio
---
Lots of "Northwoods" links at : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
The safest thing regarding "Flight 93" is to not rule anything out until a full investigation is allowed.
Best wishes
Another question is how could Osama's 19 flunkies pilot 4
commercial airliners hundreds of miles when various testimony reveals that they couldn't fly Cessnas properly, and that they were idiotic patsies???
IMO, the flights that hit the towers were probably drones, a missile and/or explosives blew-up the Pentagon, & Flight 93 (or some other flight) was shot down miles away from that empty hole in the ground in Shanksville.
Maybe the fighter pilots...
... denied shooting Flight 93 down because they really didn't shoot Flight 93 down.
I see absolutely no reason to believe that Flight 93 was ever near, or much less, even crashed in Shanksville?
--
"But truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7."
~~ Dr. Shyam Sunder - Acting Director Building and Fire Research Laboratory (NIST)
Neither, cause Flight 93 DID NOT CRASH in Shanksville
I can't believe people are still hugging the shoot-down ruse. It was created by the perps:
Is Flight93crash.com a spook site?
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2007/02/is-flight93crashcom-spook-site.html
...to distract us from no plane crashing at shanksville:
Hunt the Boeing II: Shanksville edition!
http://killtown.911review.org/htb2.html
Beck
Glen Beck was talking yesterday about Flight 93 and he said that a major reason that the people fought back against the terrorists was because they were in communication via cell phones with people on the ground who told them that there had been planes that were hijacked and they had been flown into the Twin Towers in NYC.
Due to this information the people on the plane made the choice to fight the hijackers and risk their lives.
Made me think. The assumption that there was communication with people on the ground adds another element to this tale. In order for someone on a hijacked plane to act they really would have to believe that they were going to die if they did not do something.
The calls take on a new dimesion.
Oh yea.... and the terrorists are targeting our schools.... but Beck is the only one going to tell the people....not the MSM???
___________________
Together in Truth!