FLIGHT 93 - The Biggest 911 Smoking Gun!

PRESS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

12/22/07

PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH
www.pilotsfor911truth.org

Contact: Robert Balsamo
e-mail: [email protected]

UNITED 93 DATA PROVIDED BY US GOVERNMENT DOES NOT SUPPORT OBSERVED EVENTS
Pilots for 9/11 Truth, an international organization of pilots and aviation professionals, petitioned the National Transportation and Safety Board (NTSB) via the Freedom of Information Act to obtain United Flight 93 Flight Data Recorder information, consisting of a Comma Separated Value (CSV) file and Flight Path Animation, allegedly derived from Flight 93 Flight Data Recorder (FDR). The data provided by the NTSB contradict observed events in several significant ways:

The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support observations.
All Altitude data on the northern approach contradicts witnesses published by the New York Times.
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.
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 explosion.
Impact angle according to Flight Data Recorder does not support an almost vertical impact as the govt story and crater suggests.
In May, 2007, members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth received these documents from the NTSB and began a close analysis of the data they contain. After expert review and cross check, Pilots for 9/11 Truth has concluded that the information in these NTSB documents does not support, and in some instances factually contradicts, the official government position that United Airlines Flight 93 created the impact crater as reported, in Somerset County, PA on the morning of September 11, 2001 .According to the US Govt, United Airlines Flight 93 approached Somerset County from the North-Northwest at a high altitude on the morning of September 11, 200 1 . However, many witnesses contradict altitude as well as approach path. Also according to reports, and as the impact crater suggests, United Airlines Flight 93 impacted terrain at an almost vertical 90 degree angle, while the Flight Data Recorder shows a 35 degree angle with up-sloping terrain, further reducing impact angle.

The information provided by the US Government does not support reports of United Airlines Flight 93 approach, impact angles, and lack of jet fuel at Somerset Country, PA.

Pilots for 9/11 Truth is committed to discovering the truth surrounding the events of September 11, 2001 . We have contacted both the NTSB and the FBI regarding these and other inconsistencies. To date, they have refused to comment on, correct, refute, retract or offer side-letters that might explain the discrepancies between what they claim are the data extracted from the FDR of United Flight 93 and the events observed. .As concerned citizens and professionals in the aviation industry, Pilots for 9/11 Truth asks, why have these discrepancies not been addressed by agencies within the United States Government? Pilots for 9/11 Truth takes the position that an official government inquiry into these discrepancies is warranted and long overdue. We call upon our fellow citizens to write to their Congressional representatives to inform them of these discrepancies and call for an immediate investigation into this matter. For more information and in depth analysis please visit pilotsfor911truth.org.

Members of Pilots For 9/11 Truth at pilotsfor911truth.org...

ENCLOSURE: Cover letter of FOIA requests.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

I just want to ring in here on the phone call issue.

It is quite possible that voice matching technology was used. Warrantless wiretaps have been legal since the Oklahoma City bombing. Therefore, I believe that every single phone call ever made in the U.S. since then has been recorded and archived by the NSA. This means that they have your voiceprint, and every detail of anyone's life that they have ever mentioned on the telephone since then. This includes details like "how are the kids" and "I can't believe the electric bill is so high this month." The technology and the capablility are there to create these phone calls.

I do not believe this is necessarily the case though. The calls could have just as easily been real calls made from a plane, say maybe out over the Atlantic.

Where those people are today, or how they met their demise is certainly a legitimate concern. But they did not die in Shanksville.

At 35 degrees, which would not be abnormal for any similar circimstances, any plane could have had the back drop down on impact, and gone skidding in that soil at the alleged location.

There may well have been some break-up on impact and potentially more, less significant, thereafter. However, almost all, if not all, actual physical evidence most probably would not have landed even 1/2 mile away, much less 1 to 8 miles away. Nothing that was not extremely light, that is. There may or may not have been an explosion sending some lighter parts and material over 1/2 mile away but no more than 1 mile. It would depend on what the material was.

That is the type of impact I would expect some material to land within a 70 acre radius. But not 1 to 8 miles away. No passengers would be flung over 70 acres much less 1 to 8 miles away.

For those unsure of what a 35-degree angle looks like, please locate a protractor and measure out 35 degrees. They can be purchased for less than a dollar at most stores and come in plastic or metal.

reply to post by IvanZana


Unless, someone in Cleveland or elsewhere taped it off the news programs, I do not know of anyone who has any. I had no idea I was one day going to work to prove a flight called 93 landed in Cleveland. I wish I had now.

However, just to validate my own memory, I checked with other people having seen it as well. They agree with what I have stated in this discussion. No, I cannot prove it but then no one can disprove it either. I can only relate what I and they actually recall on that day, because it was such a surreal occurrence that day and those immediately following. One of those occurrences people normally do not forget, including details.

I do know what Hopkins looks like. I have flown out of and into Hopkins on numerous occasions. I watched them expand Hopkins over the years bit by bit and walked what became a terminal trying to equal O'Hare in size.

There are still reportings of that event on the Internet. Unfortunately, when I attempted to locate the more valid websites, regarding Flight 93, I had saved in my favorite links at least a couple of years ago, the websites went disappearing for one reason or another. Over time, I learned to trust some websites but not others. The ones I felt I could trust are gone. No big surprise there.

One of the oddities that stood out was the number of 200 passengers disembarking from alleged Flight 93. 200 passengers during a work day? That is normally unheard of except charter flights for tours. Week-day travelers are normally business people and coach can be extremely empty for those not traveling for business or designated charter flights.

Another was they were shuttled to NASA. The terminal could easily have accomodated 200 passenger though unexpected on that day. There were plenty of places to place them if they had to stay over until after 9/11.
They are at the airport and numerous from Hopkins and throughout Cleveland.

Then a team of scientists, from Houston, brought in on a KC-135 was ordered landed. Didn't the military have any cargo planes instead? Those are not comfortable, but they are a darn sight better than flying in on a tanker.

9/11/2001 was surreal from beginning to final subsiding in less than 4 hours.

do you really think that a government capable of killing thousands in the world trade centres would find it hard to kill 45 plane passengers?..governments have been killing there citizens for thousands of years in the belief it was for the good of there nation

After reviewing tha angles, crater, evidence and witness testimony, more and more it would seem like they saw a cruise missile.

Cruise missiles were being used as well as hijacked airplanes and mock plane crashes to simulate a multiple terror attack.






[edit on 11-1-2008 by IvanZana]

reply to post by IvanZana


Ivan, that is a fake newpaper article. That is not the normal header on an A-11 page for the Cleveland Plain Dealer. I still receive the paper, though not living in Cleveland any longer, and I just validated that per comparison to your source.

reply to post by IvanZana


Excellent video post Ivan. But once again your nack for posting the obvious will fall on blind eyes I fear.

This weapon, especially in a white or light gray paint scheme, certainly could be mistaken for an airliner. And especially when you consider that witnesses were looking at something moving at 500mph.

Depth perception might be skewed when viewing this weapon from a distance as well. In other words, you might think you were seeing a much larger airliner at a greater distance, when in reality you were seeing a weapon at a much closer distance. It would probably be safe to bet that this perception alteration was an enhancement deliberately built into the design. Not all camoflage is green.



[edit on 1/11/0808 by jackinthebox]

reply to post by fatdad


The "government" did not murder anyone. We, the people, are the government of the US. Sociopathic people, within the federal bureaucracy, have always been quite capable of heinous acts from the time they are children. Cruelty to animals is the first clear sign of a psychopathic personality disorder. They are not mentally ill. They did not develop a conscience by the time they reach 7 years of age.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by IvanZana

 

This weapon, especially in a white or light gray paint scheme, certainly could be mistaken for an airliner. And especially when you consider that witnesses were looking at something moving at 500mph.

Depth perception might be skewed when viewing this weapon from a distance as well. In other words, you might think you were seeing a much larger airliner at a greater distance, when in reality you were seeing a weapon at a much closer distance.
[edit on 1/11/0808 by jackinthebox]

You got the eye jack.

There is ample proof that during the terror drills of Spetmebr 11th, multiple simultaneous live hijacking and cruise missiles, Lear jets acting as cruise missile serrogates,and mock plane crashes into buildings and other places around were all taking place in the u.s and canada on September 11th,2001.

[edit on 11-1-2008 by IvanZana]

I have been searching, for quite a while, to find an expert to explain possible top speed on impact in a nose diving commercial jetliner at an angle. At at angle is normal for any nose diving plane. I located the following discussing loss of engines and being forced to land. The same drag over and under any plane, the closer the sea level the heavier the drag resistance becomes, will exist with or without engines running and nose diving at anl angle:

www.geocities.com...

"A Boeing 737-300 ditched successfully!

On the 16th of January 2002, a Boeing 737-300 belonging to an Indonesian Airline had both its engines flamed out - a term to describe that the jet engines had failed. It happened as it commenced its descend to 9000 feet through thunderous clouds that were filled with rain.

The crew then tried to relight the engines but it failed to revive. Compared to a Boeing 777 where the relighting process is automatic, the Boeing 737 did not appear to have this more advanced facility. In addition to this, on a Boeing 777, the APU will automatically light up as well when it senses both engine failures. The APU or the auxiliary power unit is a small jet engine that is located in the tail section and powers the electricity and air-conditioning of the airplane.

When the engine failed, the Captain maneuvered the airplane so that it could glide at an optimum speed of around 240 knots. This would cause the airplane to lose height rapidly at about 3000 feet per minute. He then attempted to make a forced landing, but preferred to ditch into water if only he could locate the sea. As the sea was out of reach, he decided to ditch on a river instead.

During the forced landing process, the Captain tried to decelerate from 240 to 150 knots by use of the flaps, but the hydraulics were not available to power the action. (In a Boeing 777, there is an emergency device known as a RAT or Ram Air Turbine, which is powered by free airflow as the airplane glide down with dead engines. The RAT will provide some hydraulics as well as electrical power during this very critical phase of the emergency.) Luckily, the ditching was very well flown and the Boeing 737 came to a stop, floating near the side of the river.

This was one of the very rare situations where a commercial airplane lost both engines and was able to ditch successfully. So Murphy Law is right! Engineers were unable to determine the exact cause of the failure yet but it was speculated that engine icing was one of the possible cause of the flame out. (In this accident, 23 people were injured in the plane carrying 54 passengers and a crew of 6. One stewardess died when she was drowned in the river.)"

There is a photo of the condition of that plane landing in water at what is a high velocity impact no matter how the pilot valiently tries to fight the forces of nature with all that out-of-control mass and weight.

reply to post by OrionStars


I like how the pilot managed to pull the plane right up to the dock.

Ivan, after I posted that the article was faked, I thought I should explain why it was faked.

On the A section of the Cleveland Plain Dealer, it would read one of these two ways on the header:

Left justified - A(insert page number) | National or National|International (or insert any section title)
Right justified - The Plain Dealer | Day of week | Month, date, year

I located a couple of sections I saved, and it read that way in both 2001 and 2003. The headers are somewhat different by 2008. None of them read as that header at your source.

This is the bio of the reporter on the byline in your source. I seriously doubt he would be covering that type of story. There are other reporters covering highly senstive breaking news accounts and are highly well seasoned at it:

www.zoominfo.com...

"4. www.louisvillelibrary.org
www.louisvillelibrary.org/node - [Cached]
Published on: 9/15/2007 Last Visited: 12/14/2007

Recommended reading The Knights Next Door: Everyday People Living Middle Ages Dreams, a book by Patrick O'Donnell, looks at life in the Society for Creative Anachronism.

Patrick O'Donnell is a storyteller. As a young editor, he worked as obituary writer for the Cleveland Plain Dealer, where he chronicled the lives of everyday people, trying to reveal more of their stories than a simple name and date. As an editor for the Metro section of the paper, he now continues to tell stories.
...
Along the way, O'Donnell, who refers to himself as "the traveler," takes many sidetrips, and it is in these that he truly begins to understand why, 40 years after its founding, the SCA still survives and thrives.

O'Donnell begins his journey as a "newbie," hanging out with the Cleveland contingent of the Roman household Darkyard, headed by Count (now Duke) Brannos. There he learns to construct and fight in armor, sew garb, and honor longstanding SCA traditions. More importantly, he makes friends and contacts on all levels of the Society. 5. Patrick O'Donnell
www.greenmanreview.com/bio/pat - [Cached]
Published on: 10/30/2007 Last Visited: 10/30/2007

Patrick O'Donnell, Senior Writer, is a copy editor who lives in the Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania. He's been dodging high tax brackets by working as a journalist for more than a decade, and has been known to pander a bit too much to his pets. He enjoys reading, writing, hiking, camping, canoeing and, above all, music. "

reply to post by jackinthebox


Those engines barely moved from the sides of the plane. What a difference between the alleged crash outside Shanksville and that plane. Water is very hard on those type of nose dives. I can even see that it definitely a commercial jetliner. No doubt about it.

reply to post by IvanZana


If something like that was used, that would easily explain why there are so many different versions and descriptions, particularly when the media started pounding it in everyone's head, that it HAD to be a Boeing 757 alleged to be Flight 93. Subliminal suggestion is not always as covert as people try to make it, when forcing people to accept something they would not ordinarily accept without subliminal suggestion.

Therefore, time those, called eye witnesses, were interviewed can make all the difference, in what they recount they think they remembered seeing and hearing vs what they actually did see and hear, plus, fully remember with accuracy. The subconscious stores everything with accuracy. The conscious can easily tend to rationalize without accuracy, depending on how receptive people consicously are to suggestions of inaccurracies from others, plus, being willing to accept the non-truth as false truth.

I have seen at least two different versions of what Walter Miller claimed to see on arrival. The first one reported he said there was nothing there, not even bodies or body remains. In other interviews, he started adding on accountings, with which others called eye witness accountings did not agree, nor did his own first interview reported agree with his first accounting.

Originally posted by OrionStars
Those engines barely moved from the sides of the plane. What a difference between the alleged crash outside Shanksville and that plane. Water is very hard on those type of nose dives. I can even see that it definitely a commercial jetliner. No doubt about it.

Only, that wasn't a nosedive at the time of ditching. As you posted earlier

When the engine failed, the Captain maneuvered the airplane so that it could glide at an optimum speed of around 240 knots. This would cause the airplane to lose height rapidly at about 3000 feet per minute. He then attempted to make a forced landing, but preferred to ditch into water if only he could locate the sea. As the sea was out of reach, he decided to ditch on a river instead.

During the forced landing process, the Captain tried to decelerate from 240 to 150 knots by use of the flaps, but the hydraulics were not available to power the action. Luckily, the ditching was very well flown and the Boeing 737 came to a stop, floating near the side of the river.

It's not at all a similar crash to United 93. Regardless of story, UA93 wasn't being controlled with intent to land in one piece. This plane was.

Having said that, those people on that plane were very lucky. The plane could have crashed like this one did:


Less than half the people on that plane survived, but it went better than it might of done, since the hijackers wanted it to go to Australia, but the pilot tricked them. Having said that, IIRC more would have survived, had they not inflated their lifejackets prematurely.

reply to post by apex


Anything is a nose dive when a plane is coming down at any angle to what is below it. Chances are the first contact with land or water is going to be the nose and engines. The nose gets there first before the engines.

Originally posted by OrionStars
.......... I located the following discussing loss of engines and being forced to land. The same drag over and under any plane, the closer the sea level the heavier the drag resistance becomes, will exist with or without engines running and nose diving at anl angle: .......
When the engine failed, the Captain maneuvered the airplane so that it could glide at an optimum speed of around 240 knots

Apex is 100% correct. Your data isnt even CLOSE to comparison on so many levels.

Cabin pressure - NORMAL. Hydraulics - NORMAL. Cargo fire - NORMAL. Smoke - NORMAL. Engines - RUNNING. Engine RPM (N1) 70% . Fuel pressure - NORMAL. Engine vibration - LO. Wind direction - WEST. Wind speed - 25 kts. Pitch angle - 40 deg down. Airspeed - 500 kts. Heading - 180 deg. Roll angle - 150 deg right. AoA - 20 deg negative

-Flight 93 FDR

(please note bolded items)

Oh.. thats right....the FDR was planted in the ground prior to the missile hitting!!!







[edit on 11-1-2008 by CaptainObvious]

reply to post by apex


If that plane stays parallel to the water at impact, the engines will definitely get there first. That is not a nose dive at 35 degree angle.

High speed impact belly flops are far more destructive on any construction. Be it a plane, human body or anything else.

If no one is controlling a plane, it is definitely going to come in at angle, very probably no more than 45 degrees and more likely at 25 to 35 degrees.

What is your relevant point concerning alleged Flight 93 for comparison, as to which angles planes come in for landing or impact?

reply to post by CaptainObvious



This is going from the inane to the absurd. With so many other major inconsistencies now proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, by our side, how can you seriously keep throwing all that unproved hearsay wording at us?