ACT IV: PART VI
Resolving all the mysteries surrounding
of United Airlines Flight 93 will not be an easy task. The biggest
alas, is that the events transpired in what could best be described as
middle of fucking nowhere.’ Witnesses were relatively few and far
were news cameras. In contrast to the attacks in
There are, therefore, frustratingly few resources to draw upon. But by utilizing those that are available, and adding a little informed speculation, we can perhaps find reasonable answers to some of the most perplexing questions surrounding the forgotten flight of September 11.
One question concerning the attacks of that day that has never been definitively answered, either by the official story or by various alternative theories, is how exactly were the cockpits of these planes breached? How could a small band of hijackers have successfully gained control of four passenger jets so quickly and decisively that not one of the pilots or copilots was able to send out a formal hijacking alert?
The “no hijackers” theories – a subset of alternative theories that includes both the “remote control” and the “no planes” hypotheses – arose at least in part as a response to this vexing question. But if those theories are in error (or, more likely, deliberate disinformation), and if there were real planes and real human actors that day, then how was such an unprecedented operation pulled off? The answer, perhaps, can be found in some of the forgotten details of the Flight 93 story.
One such long-forgotten detail is that
for United Airlines initially reported that there were 45 persons on
Flight 93 that fateful day – 38 passengers (including the four
seven crew members. Several days after the attacks, however, at the
time that the Todd Beamer story was hitting the press, the airline
revised the passenger count to 37. To explain the discrepancy, “United
statement Sunday [
The airline also declined to identify the passenger or give a reason for his or her alleged purchase of an additional seat, thus making the claim difficult to investigate, if anyone had been so inclined. At the time, no one really questioned the explanation for the revised passenger count, but in retrospect, United’s claim seems rather suspect. After all, even if someone had needed or wanted a little extra personal space, there was no reason for them to have paid extra for that luxury, given that the aircraft could seat around 200 passengers and only 38 tickets were sold. If they so desired, every passenger on that plane could have spread out across their very own row of seats, for the price of a single ticket.
What conclusion then should we draw from this curious tidbit of lost history? One possibility is that there was in fact a 38th passenger, one whose existence was denied so that his identity would remain forever concealed – and for a very good reason: that 38th passenger, you see, could very well have been the real post-hijacking pilot of United Airlines Flight 93.
Another aspect of the Flight 93 story that has been long forgotten is that one theory/rumor that was circulating very early on, but that never really took root, was that one member of each hijacking team was already in the cockpit, sitting in a jump seat, before the planes ever left the ground. Real airline pilots, or those who can be passed off as real airline pilots, are routinely afforded that privilege, so such a scenario is entirely plausible. Once the official story began to take shape, however, such talk quickly subsided. Perhaps it is time to bring it back.
Consider, if you will, that all of the callers from Flight 93 were consistent in claiming that they only saw three hijackers. At no time throughout their ordeal did any of the passengers see the fourth hijacker that the government steadfastly maintains was aboard that plane. But how could that be? The most reasonable explanation that comes to mind is that the fourth man was already in the cockpit before the plane took off and thus was never seen by passengers.
Consider also that none of the callers
of whom spoke at length about what had transpired on the doomed flight
of a violent takeover of the cockpit. None of them, in fact, gave any
indication that they had any idea how control of the plane had been
even though, as has already been discussed, several of the callers were
in either first-class or business-class seats, from where they should
able to hear and probably even see any attempted takeover of the
then did none of them witness the cockpit takeover? Again, the most
answer is that, contrary to how the scene plays out in
Another forgotten fact about Flight 93
passenger Tom Burnett told his wife, Deena, that one of the hijackers
Deena Burnett has said that Tom, a gun enthusiast who had grown up
weapons, was well acquainted with guns and was quite sure that what he
was real. But how could a gun have made it through airport security
despite frequent claims to the contrary, was not all that lax prior to
It is not hard to imagine how a man with a gun, who was already within the cockpit and who was not considered a threat by the flight crew, could easily have taken both the pilot and the copilot by surprise, preventing either from sending out a hijacking alert. This mystery man could then have been joined, either at a set time or by some type of prearranged signal, by a couple of his associates conveniently seated nearby in first-class seats. Together, they could have quickly killed/disabled/restrained the two pilots, after which the unseen 38th passenger could have taken the wheel, so to speak – remaining unseen by any of the passengers – while one of the other men took the gun to use for crowd control, where it could then have been seen by first-class passenger Tom Burnett.
Speaking of crowd control, it should be noted that the hijackers had uncannily good luck in that regard, given that all four of the hijacked planes were flying that day, for reasons that have never been explained nor seriously questioned, with a suspiciously light load of passengers. In hindsight, it seems rather obvious that the likelihood of this mission succeeding would have been significantly reduced had the hijackers had to contend with, say, 175 passengers on each plane rather than just a few dozen. Equally obvious is that the ‘terrorists’ that the government has blamed for the attacks would have had no control over how these flights were booked, and yet they still managed to secure not just one, but four ridiculously under-booked flights to carry out their dastardly mission.
On just about any day other than
As was previously noted during the
As previously mentioned in this series,
frequently been claimed – by, for example, more than a few feisty
to this latest series of posts – that there were no planes used on
And while we’re on this topic, here’s another question that comes to mind: why, if the powers-that-be were going to go light on the ‘fake’ passengers, did they load the planes up with incongruously large ‘fake’ flight crews? Was it because the conspirators used up so many of their fake names on the flight attendants that they didn’t have enough left over for the passengers? We can assume, I’m guessing, that these ‘fake’ lists were not thrown together on the spur of the moment, but rather were planned long in advance, as were all the rest of the operational details of this mission. So again I must ask: if the lists are faked, why are they faked so poorly? And why, come to think of it, did United Airlines need to revise the passenger count for Flight 93? If the ‘fake’ passenger list was one name short, couldn’t they have just added another fake name to it?
Speaking of poorly-faked lists, certain factions of the skeptics’ movement have argued that the passenger lists are so badly composed that they don’t even contain the names of any of the alleged hijackers – thus proving that there were no hijackers on board the planes that day! Sadly, in some quarters this seems to pass for serious analysis. It is true, of course, that the passenger lists that normally appear in the media do not contain the names of the alleged hijackers. Shockingly, the published passenger lists also do not contain the names of the flight attendants and cabin crew, even though, technically speaking, those folks were all passengers on the 9-11 flights as well (“passenger” is defined by Webster’s as: “a person traveling in a train, boat, car, etc.”).
Surprisingly enough, the “passenger lists” seem to contain only the names of those persons who were what most people would consider to be “passengers,” as that term is commonly understood. If for no other reason than to feign respect for the families of the victims, it is hardly shocking to find that the names of the hijackers are not intermingled with the names of the passengers (just as the names of alleged school shooters, who invariably end up among the dead – but don’t even get me started on that – are not intermixed with the names of the other shooting victims). Thus we find that there are actually three lists of names for each 9-11 flight: a passenger list, a list of crew members, and a list of hijackers. Seriously, people, it’s not really that hard to figure out if you put even a little bit of effort into it.
Some would have you believe, nevertheless, that the ‘missing’ names on the passenger lists are a telling clue. Because the conspirators, you see, although clever enough to engineer the massive spectacle that we all witnessed on September 11, and clever enough to keep the wool pulled over the nation’s eyes for nearly six years now, were not clever enough to remember a little operational detail like including the fake hijacker names on their fake passenger lists. And none of their stooges in the tightly-controlled media were alert enough to notice the oversight before publishing the incriminating lists, and, amazingly enough, no one to this day has bothered to correct this smoking-gun error!
I hate to veer off course here, but I
mention that there is something else that puzzles me about the planning
this operation. According to some particularly aggressive 9-11 ‘truth’
there were no planes used that day, not even the ones that appeared to
That, I think we can all agree, would have been a mighty impressive blend of live action, digital animation and pyrotechnics, all captured in real time during an unrehearsed yet flawless one-time-only performance! But here’s the part that troubles me: how come we never saw the video footage of the fake plane hitting the Pentagon? I mean, it’s obviously pretty easy to throw such a video together, especially given that the conspirators already had the footage of an explosion occurring at the alleged point of impact – footage, in fact, from several different cameras filming from various angles. All they needed to do was have their FX wunderkinds insert the fake plane, which should have only taken a few seconds, judging by their alleged live performance on September 11. Come to think of it, while they had their Dreamworks Real-Time Plane Superimposer® kit out, they could have thrown together a fake video of Flight 93 plowing into the ground as well. If they had the technology, after all, why did they not use it for all four of the ‘fake’ planes? And if not at the time of the attacks, then why not anytime since then? Why would the powers-that-be let questions about Flight 77 and Flight 93 fester among 9-11 skeptics, even while busily running around planting disinformation to muddy the issues, if they had the technology all along to easily produce a couple of convincing videotapes to prove their case?
According to the ‘cartoon airplane’
or all of the 9-11 flights never flew at all that day. On every other
flew as scheduled, but on
The question then is a simple one: where are all these people? Why have none of them come forward? And yes, I know that the mainstream media would have no interest in providing a forum to such people, if they did in fact exist. But the Internet, as we all know, is a wild and wooly place where sometimes even something resembling the truth manages to emerge. After all, virtually everyone has access to a blog of some sort these days – a MySpace page if nothing else. And there is no shortage of 9-11 skeptics to contact if someone were to want ‘their’ 9-11 story to be told. So once again the question is: why have we not (to my knowledge, at least) heard from a single person who was in a position to know coming forward to report that the 9-11 flights never actually took off that day?
As previously stated, the ‘cartoon
claims that the viewing audience at home was fooled by some rather
special-effects work. But what of all the live eyewitnesses? After all,
the first strike caught everyone’s attention, all eyes in
The proper response to this, of course, is “Duh! It was broadcast fucking live, or nearly so, on pretty much every television station on the dial! Millions of people around the world watched it happen – over and over and over again. Why then would reporters have sought out witnesses to discern what had happened? Why was there a need, then or now, for witnesses to come forward to report that they had seen what everyone else in the world had seen? If, however, all those thousands of witnesses had seen something much different than what the rest of us thought we saw, then there would certainly be a reason for them to come forward.
The question, in other words, is not
all the witnesses who saw planes crash into the
Does anyone really believe that it is
in this information age, to completely muzzle thousands of outraged New
Yorkers? Every single one of them?! Along with, of course, the
friends and family members that these witnesses would undoubtedly have
their stories to. Why are the offices of the 9-11 ‘Truth’ movement in
And where, by the way, are the
videotapes that don’t feature the insertion of the ‘fake’ planes? Even
accept the not entirely implausible notion that all the mainstream
videotapes and still photographs were altered, and that the
spectators who have released images into the public domain were
government plants, there undoubtedly were real witnesses who captured
still or moving images of the events of that day. After all, there are
lot of tourists prowling through
According to the ‘cartoon airplane’
website of the Bureau of Transportation – which, as a website
an agency of the federal government, is obviously a repository of The
indicates that American Airlines Flights 11 and 77 did not fly on
2001. According to researcher Gerard
Hologram Holmgren, writing
November 2003,“This solves the question of what happened to them.
Because the flights did not exist.” The United Airlines flights,
quite real: “A search for UA flights from Newark on Sept. 11, 2001
to SF was scheduled at 8:00 and actually departed at 8:01 … A search
from Boston on that day shows 0175 to LA was scheduled for 8:00 and
departed at 7:58.” (http://sydney.indymedia.org/print.php3?article_id=36354)
Holmgren and company later decided, of course, that all four of the flights were fake. The problem, however, is that the very same database that they claim ‘proves’ the nonexistence of Flights 77 and 11, also ‘proves’ that Flights 175 and 93 did exist. The obvious question, therefore, is: why did the conspirators choose to use ‘fake’ flight numbers for two of the ‘fake’ flights and real flight numbers for the other two ‘fake’ flights? Why not use ‘fake’ flight numbers for all the ‘fake’ flights? Why complicate things by having half the ‘fake’ flights carry the numbers of flights that really did take off that morning (and therefore needed to be disposed of in some covert way)? Or, if the argument is to be that none of the 9-11 flights left the ground that day, then why is it that United Airlines was able to successfully list their fake flights but American Airlines was not? And why is it that while the conspirators are powerful enough to silence the media, academia, the scientific community, etc., they were not powerful enough to have had the BTS database brought into compliance with the official story before it could be ‘discovered,’ some two years after the fact, by an alleged 9-11 skeptic?
Speaking of 9-11 skeptics, it has occurred to me, while working on this post (at, I might add, a rather blistering pace that has left me feeling a bit fatigued), that perhaps the reason that the ‘truth’ movement has heaped so much scorn and derision upon both the passenger lists and the reported phone calls placed from Flight 93, is to discourage serious researchers from looking too closely at the details of those phone calls and passenger lists – for perhaps hidden in those details is something approximating the truth of what happened on September 11, 2001. And the truth, needless to say, would be a most unwelcome addition to the 9-11 ‘truth’ movement.
There are many out there in that movement, by the way, who will say that positing that there were real hijackers aboard the 9-11 flights – or even that there were real 9-11 flights – is an exercise in disinformation designed to slyly lend support to the official story. They would say such things, that is, if there were any 9-11 skeptics/scholars/researchers out there who ever commented on, denounced, praised, critiqued, linked to, shit upon, or otherwise acknowledged any of the original 9-11 research that has been posted on this site. But as we all know, there are no such persons out there, apparently because the ‘movement’ is far too busy these days discussing holographic airplanes, space-based weapons, mini-nukes, and various other avenues of ‘research’ that can collectively be described - and quite charitably, I might add - as “a steaming pile of horseshit.”
Perhaps, though, I have painted with
too broad a
brush here. To be fair, not everyone who hangs a “9-11 Skeptic” shingle
their door these days is pitching Star Wars weapons and cartoon
though a sizable faction does appear to be. Have I mentioned, by the
the most verbally aggressive member of the holographic-airplanes team,
Holmgren, just happens to be the brother of David Holmgren, who appears
for lack of a better description,
Anyway, as I started to say, there is another faction of the skeptics’ community that remains unimpressed with the newfangled ideas being introduced and/or endorsed by the Scholars-come-lately in the crowd. Some among this other faction, however, spend a lot of time bemoaning the fall from grace of some of the ‘old school’ skeptics like Mike Ruppert and Dan Hopsicker, who were, we are assured, the ‘real’ skeptics in the crowd. If we could just turn the clock back to the days of yore when ‘real’ investigators were steering us in the fruitful direction of, for example, Delmart “Mike” Vreeland, then we would, I guess, be making real progress. Or something like that.
Truth be told, there never were any real 9-11 skeptics who attained any prominence within the ‘skeptics’ community. The movement has been fully controlled from the very start and continues to be so today. The only thing that has changed is that the bullshit that was being shoveled by the ‘old school’ skeptics appears to have been largely replaced by the horseshit being spread by the new wave of fake skeptics. Some people seem to have a preference for one or the other. To each his own, I guess, but from where I stand, it all looks and smells about the same and I do my best to avoid stepping in either one.
To digress a bit further here, it
should be noted
that there is a perfectly obvious agenda behind the new wave of
concerning the demolition of the
And that, my friends, is how the deliberate demolition of the towers could be sold to the American people. Rest assured that, presented with such a bill-of-goods, John Q. Public would undoubtedly do what he does best: buy it and consume it with gusto.
Anyway, as I started to say before rudely digressing from my original digression, there is a very slim possibility that this post will be denounced by some 9-11 skeptics as a covert endorsement of the official story. In the unlikely event that that should come to pass, I would like to point out – preemptively, of course, because that is how we, as Americans, like to do things – that if the scenario outlined here is accurate, there are several clear indications that this had to have been an inside job:
· First, the planners of this mission had to be absolutely certain that the mysterious 38th passenger (and, obviously, his counterparts on the three other flights) would be afforded the privilege of being seated in the cockpit.
· Second, it had to be assured that this person would have access to a gun – either one that he carried on himself, or one that was planted for him.
· Third, the four flights had to be deliberately under-booked to help insure the success of the operation.
· Fourth, all of these facts had to be covered up and/or glossed over.
All of these indicators of state sponsorship are, of course, in addition to the compelling evidence already reviewed in this series, including the curious collapses of three World Trade Center buildings; the absence of any convincing evidence of a passenger jet crash at the Pentagon; the wildly inappropriate responses/non-responses of the U.S. military, NORAD, the FAA, various Bush administration officials, Bush’s Secret Service detail, and, lest we forget, George Bush himself; and the apparent downing of United Airlines Flight 93, which is the topic we now return to.
One question concerning Flight 93 that begs for an answer is: what happened to the rest of the plane (and, of course, the plane’s contents, including the passengers)? Officially at least, only a small fraction of the plane was ever recovered, leaving nearly 100 tons of aircraft unaccounted for. Since it seems very unlikely that either a crash or a missile strike would have reduced nearly the entire plane to confetti, the obvious question is: what became of all the wreckage?
That, alas, is not an easy question to
The problem arises from the fact that the alleged ‘crash’ site, along
large swath of the surrounding countryside, was sealed off from public
near-record time. As one early report noted, “The curious were kept
more than 3
miles from the crash site.” (Ken Zapinski “A Blur in the Sky, Then a
The FBI was clearly quite concerned
prying eyes away from the alleged crash site. What were they afraid
seen? While the curious were kept at bay, an unknown number of FBI
(along with, undoubtedly, various other shadowy government operatives)
presumably occupied themselves with finding evidence. To aid in those
“A self-piloting helicopter developed by
So the FBI was clearly also quite worried about possibly leaving some speck of evidence behind. And yet, with no shortage of manpower, technology or commitment, some 90% of the plane was allegedly never recovered. How could that be? Two possible answers come to mind: there never was any plane, or at least not one that blew up near Shanksville, Pennsylvania; or considerably more airplane wreckage was recovered than has been, or ever will be, officially acknowledged.
As previously stated, it seems reasonable to conclude that something exploded in the air over Shanksville. A fair amount of debris was recovered, much of it by rank-and-file citizens who gathered it from around their nearby homes and farms. And if there was nothing more for the government to conceal than a small crater serving as a fake crash site, then why was such a large area cordoned off? What were all those state and federal agents so diligently guarding? And what was it that searchers were looking for?
Though impossible to verify, my best guess is that they were searching for exactly what they found: large chunks of Flight 93 that came to rest far from the alleged crash site. The existence of these pieces, of course, could not be officially acknowledged since it would be difficult to explain how a light breeze could transport bulky pieces of aircraft fuselage over great distances. And it certainly wouldn’t have been difficult to ‘disappear’ the troublesome wreckage given the extraordinary level of security around the restricted zone.
Another lingering question surrounding
concerns the precise time that it crashed/exploded. There are three
times to consider here: 9:58 AM, the time at which all communications
plane reportedly ceased; 10:03 AM, the time that, according to the
story that eventually took shape, Flight 93 plowed into the ground; and
AM, the time that was initially widely reported and accepted as the
time of the
‘crash,’ until the 9-11 Commission said otherwise, with the alleged
According to one media report, “A Daily
investigation has found a roughly three-minute gap between the time the
goes silent – according to government-prepared transcripts – and the
scientists have pinpointed for the crash. Several leading seismologists
that Flight 93 crashed last Sept. 11 at , give or take a couple of seconds. Family members
hear the cockpit voice recorder in
There would seem, at first glance, to be a bit of a conflict between the seismic data and the official 9-11 Commission report.
In September 2002, however, the
Terry Wallace spoke with Discover Magazine and in doing so he may have
unwittingly solved the mystery of the three-minute discrepancy: “’The
produced a significant signal, consistent with a fully-loaded jet that
intact, or nearly intact, on impact.’ That finding disputes rumors that
hijacked jet was shot down, he says, because a missile or other
have broken the craft into smaller pieces that would have caused less
disturbance. The Pan Am crash [sic] over
What we know then, thanks to Mr.
Wallace, is that
the destruction of an airplane in the air will not produce a
seismic signal. We also know that the vast majority of the available
clearly indicates that Flight 93 was indeed destroyed in the air. We
therefore safely conclude that the seismic event that occurred at on the morning of
What we are obviously dealing with here
separate events. One of those events, the creation of the Shanksville
occurred at precisely .
But that tells us only that at
on the morning of
We are left then with two possible times for that event: and . Unfortunately though, dear readers, I don’t really have the time right now to delve into such picayune details. The problem, alas, is that I inadvertently stumbled upon a completely different avenue of research and it has proven rather difficult to pry myself away from that venture. But I have no doubt that I will, at some point in time, return to the 9-11 saga to address some additional issues. I’m just not sure when that will happen because first I have to roll out my new series of posts that I have been diligently researching for these past several months.
I still have a bit of reading to finish up, after which I have to somehow organize my voluminous notes in some coherent fashion, but then I’ll be ready to pen what could conceivably turn into a book-length series of posts. The topic will be a new one, but the ground that we will be dragging the old conspiracy plough through will be all-too-familiar to regular readers. Along the way, we’ll encounter a whole lot of people with military and/or intelligence connections, and we’ll occasionally brush up against organized pedophilia, mass murder, a secret military installation in the most curious of places, creepy underground tunnels, and a ‘call boy’ ring allegedly servicing Washington politicos. Indications of occult activity, of course, will weave their way through our story. And we will trip over more dead bodies than you can shake a friggin’ stick at – although I’m not really sure why you would want to shake a stick at dead bodies, though what you do on your own time is, I suppose, none of my business. But as I was saying, there are an extraordinary number of curious deaths attached to this story.
What we will be looking at, fearless readers, is the birthplace of the 1960s counterculture – the place that spawned the freak/hippie/flower child movement and the new styles of music that would provide the soundtrack for an era. As we all know, that place was, of course, the legendary Haight Ashbury district of San Francisco. Except that, as is so often the case, what we all ‘know’ to be true isn’t really true at all. So we will be spending our time in a different place, though we might drop in on the Haight every now and then. But here I’m getting ahead of myself, so for now, while you wait with breathless anticipation for the new posts to surface, here are some links to a handful of fairly recent interviews that I have done:
(this interview with
· http://vyzygoth.com/audio/mcgowan2-20-07.mp3 (this second interview with Mr. Goth covered my Flight 93 rants)
· http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2330 (this interview with Fintan Dunne covered a variety of topics)
· http://media.libsyn.com/media/kssz/070601DaveMcGowan.mp3 (once again the focus was on Programmed to Kill, this time with host Derek Gilbert of The Eagle 93.9)