Re: US military may have shot down United 93

["Andrew Hagen" <xah@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Just when I was ready to forget it, there appears another story on this
strange possibility.

Reuters is now reporting that the FBI has not ruled out the possibility
that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down, presumably by military
aircraft. The Defense Department continues to hotly deny it. (Link
below.)

Television news coverage of the Pennsylvania crash site has shown Army
vehicles, such as troop trucks, in the vicinity. The coverage has shown
Army personnel wearing fatigues pulling a tarpulin over some of the
wreckage (IIRC). Usually, the US military does not participate in the
investigation of civilian air disasters. That is usually the province
of the NTSB and the FBI. I am somewhat shocked that the media have not
commented that the US military is participating in the investigation of
the crash of UAL 93.

The first crash occured at 0845 EDT. UAL 93 crashed at 1000 EDT. Would
there have been enough time to scramble an interceptor aircraft? Did
the passengers succeed in re-taking their aircraft, only to find
themselves shot down by an alarmed military?

At this point, however, I remain very skeptical that UAL 93 was shot
down.

So far, I haven't seen any more news stating that UAL 93 was a 747. The
UAL web site at ual.com seems to softly affirm that it was
757.

http://us.news2.yimg.com/f/42/31/7m/dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010913/ts
/attack_pennsylvania_dc_3.html

timeline:        http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34229,00.html

Oh well. Michael Perelman will probably tell me to stop posting this
irrelevant speculation.

Andrew Hagen
xah@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Wed, 12 Sep 2001 15:17:23 -0500, Andrew Hagen wrote:

>I attempted to heavily stress that this was merely a rumor. The rumor
>now has been denied by the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, to
>the local Congressional Representative from Pennsylvania, John Murtha.
>
>http://www.post-gazette.com/breaking/20010912somersetp3.asp
>
>The American media continues to report that the crashed jet in Somerset
>was a 757. The 747 story in The Independent of the UK seems to have had
>little substance. It also was an interesting story, since a 747 is much
>bigger than a 757.
>
>I'm glad that both of those earlier reports were most likely false.
>
>Andrew Hagen
>xah@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>On Tue, 11 Sep 2001 16:34:10 -0500, Andrew Hagen wrote:
>
>>This is completely a rumor.
>>
>>My sister who lives in Germany just told me over the phone that the
>>foreign press has reported that US military jets were in the area of
>>United Airlines Flight 93, the flight that was hijacked and crashed in
>>western Pennsylvannia. The foreign press seems to be reporting that it
>>was actually shot down by the US military jets.
>>
>>The American media has not reported on what caused the crash of Flight
>>93, and has not speculated on air about the cause.
>>
>>According to The Independent (UK), the plane was not a 757 or 767, but
>>a 747, much larger than the others.
>>
>>http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=93573
>>
>>If the US did shoot down that airliner, there is a good argument that
>>it was necessary. Still, it would be an extremely important part of the
>>unfolding story.
>>
>>Again, this is just a rumor so far.
>>
>>Andrew Hagen
>>xah@xxxxxxxxxxxxx