Hello Steve,

>SA>As I understood the official legend of the hijacked plane in Pennsylvania
>SA>it crashed, following a heroic struggle by the passengers against a numbe
>SA>of hijackers, but it always seemed more plausible that it had been shot
>SA>down before it could reach its intended target.

>LL>If it crashed, without having been shot down, can it be determined?

SA>Trained investigators, with access to flight recorders, witness
SA>statements, logs of mobile phone calls etc should be able to
SA>determine the cause. If it wasn't shot down, there must have been
SA>a reason for the crash.

The reason it crashed was due to terrorists having taken over the plane.

SA>If the passengers managed to overpower the hijackers & enter the
SA>flight deck, you would think at that point they would have control of
SA>the plane, & could at least keep it flying level, with help from
SA>cabin crew until they could notify air traffic control... even if the
SA>plane was doomed due to noone being able to land it.

Some of the passengers tried to retake the plane, but apparently were
unable to wrest control from whoever was piloting the aircraft.

SA>There is too much to consider, but try a search on [ "Flight 93"
SA>cause of crash ] and see what you come up with. It is possible that
SA>the terrorists did have a bomb & did detonate it, but this is
SA>contradicted by eyewitness accounts of other planes / missiles.

If a bomb or missile caused to plane to explode or break apart,
seismologists would have picked up on it from their data.

SA>If it did crash due to passengers overpowering the hijackers, you would
SA>think it would be largely intact until it hit the ground, & then break
SA>up & scatter debris over perhaps hundreds of yards. I find it a bit hard
SA>to believe that debris would be found 6 miles away, as in a US ABC News
SA>report from 13/9/2001. That would be possible if it had broken up while
SA>still airborne.

"Seismometers also recorded the impact of Flight 93 in rural
Pennsylvania, confirming to authorities that (a) the plane was
down, and (b) it had crashed intact, rather than exploding in
midair." [Analog, April 2004, "Forensic Seismology", p. 28]

>SA>Now that Rumsfeld has confirmed that it was shot down, the questions
>SA>remain as to who shot it down, how, and on whose orders?

>LL>According to seismologists, the plane crashed, without having been
>LL>shot down.  According to them, there is irrefutable evidence, based
>LL>on data shown by their instruments, that the plane was not shot
>LL>down.  But is it possible that the scientists' interpretation of
>LL>that data is flawed?

SA>It is possible. Apparently, the seismologists put the time of the crash
SA>at 10:06am, but the "black box" tape ends at 10:03, meaning that the
SA>cause of the crash (bomb, missile etc) isn't recorded. Very convenient.

It could be the cockpit started to break apart before impact.

>LL>If Rummy's remark about the plane having been shot down is true, it
>LL>raises a lot of questions.  It all brings to light the possibility
>LL>that it was not Muslim fanatics who brought down the WTC Twin
>LL>Towers, damaged the Pentagon, etc.  Instead, it could be something
>LL>far sinister...

SA>"Operation Northwoods" is the theory - "9/11" is
the practical.

Seismic readings have limits.  For example, distant seismometers failed
to detect the plane that hit the Pentagon, being that the Pentagon is a
low, sprawling building without a deep foundation.  Also, the plane that
hit the Pentagon did so horizontally, not vertically.  The plane that
crashed in Pennsylvania struck the ground directly, with lots of force.

--Lee


 * SLMR 2.1a * I am Not a Liar - Wait I can smell my pants on fire (GWB)
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5