Flight 93 was shot down (Part 3)

By Tom Kovach

Reaction to Part 2 of this series has intensified somewhat, compared to Part 1, as I expected. One complaint was that I have spent too much time focusing on one man. The person accused me of not presenting any evidence. To condense what I said in Part 2, examining the credibility of a witness is a key part of the evidence presented in a trial. As a certified paralegal, I know how to examine witness credibility, and the credibility of Major General Paul A. Weaver, Jr., has numerous holes in it. But, there is more evidence to be examined; and, some of the evidence is empirical.

There is a popular phrase in our modern society: "do the math." The information presented by General Weaver at his 14 September 2001 press conference — which was called for the purpose of denying that Flight 93 was shot down — does not stand up to mathematical analysis. This point is key to understanding that a shoot-down was possible, despite his claim that it was impossible. (In Part 2, we saw that a shoot-down order must have existed for Flight 175, which struck the second tower of the World Trade Center 20 minutes before Flight 93 was even hijacked. Yet, Weaver also tried to imply that no shoot-down order existed for any airliner that day. If that had been true, then what was the purpose of the unprecedented FAA order for all aircraft nationwide to land immediately on that fateful morning?) At the press conference, General Weaver was quoted by the Saint Augustine Record as saying,

"By the time the F-15s were airborne, United 175 was nine minutes away from plowing into the south tower of the World Trade Center, and the fighter planes were more than 100 miles away.

''We had a nine-minute window, and we had in excess of 100 miles to intercept 175,'' Weaver said. ''There was just literally no way.''

The pilots flew ''like a scalded ape,'' topping 500 mph but were unable to catch up to the airliner, Weaver said. After Flight 175 hit the trade center, the F-15s began circling New York City in case of further hijacked planes.

Speaking to a group of civilian reporters, Weaver was able to use the phrase "topping 500 miles per hour" as though that was going really fast. But, anyone that has been around fighter planes and fighter pilots knows that 500 mph is really slow for an intercept mission. So, either Weaver was lying about the aircraft's speed, or Weaver was lying about the intention of our military to protect our country. Although I have an obvious disdain for both General Weaver and his lies, even I would not put him so low as to order our pilots to "go slow" while trying to contain the worst terrorist attack on American soil. So, logically, that means that the interceptors were ordered shoot down both Flight 175 (but arrived too late) and Flight 93 (mission accomplished) — then Weaver was sent to make it appear as though it never happened.

Interestingly, in order to cover 100 miles in nine minutes, the fighters would have needed to fly at 666.666 miles per hour. (Was this coincidental, or were Weaver's lying numbers "inspired" by the father of lies?) That figure is "in excess of 500 miles per hour," but below the sound barrier. But, the man that had overall operational command of the fighters, Major General Larry Arnold of NORAD, told Dateline NBC (reporter Mike Tabibi, 23 September 2001) that the F-15 interceptors were flying at 1,100 mph — or Mach 1.5, well above the sound barrier. Considering Weaver's career-long record of questionable statements, which general should we believe? Even news reports after Weaver's press conference state that the F-16s launched from Langley AFB in southern Virginia flew supersonic toward Washington, DC. Why would only some of the interceptors fly supersonic that day?

It is approximately 350 miles from Otis ANGB in Massachusetts to Shanksville, Pennsylvania. It is about 185 miles from Langley AFB in Virginia to Shanksville. Flying at the purported speed (which is less than half of its capable speed), the F-15s could have reached the crash site near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, in a little over half an hour from the farthest launch point. But, the F-15s were already over New York City at least 20 minutes before Flight 93 was hijacked. So, even flying at less than supersonic speed, Air Force interceptors could have easily reached Shanksville in plenty of time to shoot down Flight 93. (For some unknown reason, MSM reporters never bothered to do this simple math. And, if the math wasn't simple, I couldn't do it.)

Eyewitnesses near the Flight 93 crash site claim to have heard at least one sonic boom. (And, this author is old enough to remember the days when F-104s and B-58s created sonic booms over America on a semi-regular basis.) So, even if a fighter flew at only half of its possible speed (1,875 mph), from the farthest launch point, it could get from "wheels up" to "bogey down" in half an hour. But, did the eyewitnesses actually hear a sonic boom?

My military (both active and former) contacts in the area reported hearing a sonic boom in the Lower Hudson Valley on that fateful day. That boom would have been caused by the interceptors on their way to stop Flight 175. By that time, the first tower of the World Trade Center (WTC) was already in flames. And, by all accounts, the interceptors were hot on the trail of any hijacked airliner. So, if the interceptors were already flying at supersonic speed before they reached New York City, is there any reason to think that they would not fly supersonic after leaving the NYC area to pursue Flight 93? With a second WTC tower burning on television (0902 hours), and a smoking hole just punched through the Pentagon (0938 hours), what fighter pilot would not be flying supersonic toward the only remaining threat in the sky?

Much has been made about the fact that interceptors were launched from Massachusetts to protect New York City, and from southern Virginia to protect Washington, DC. So much has been made of it in the MSM, in fact, that some people conclude that they were the only interceptors in the sky that day. (Such is the presumption of the flawed Discovery Channel documentary that sparked this series.) The fact is that other interceptors were launched that day, including F-16s from an Air Guard unit in Toledo, Ohio. That now puts an Air Force presence much closer to the crash site of Flight 93 in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. But, why?

The MSM has led the public to believe that no interceptor was pursuing Flight 93 at all. Yet, eyewitnesses report a military plane circling the crash site shortly after the airliner went down. If the military believed (as the MSM purports) that only targets on the East Coast were threatened, and if Flight 93 was not a threat until it turned toward Washington, then why were interceptors launched from Toledo? And, the article from the Toledo Blade — published only a few days after General Russell's prescient remarks — specified that the mission of the 180th Fighter Wing was to shoot down any hijacked airliner that "strayed into the Midwest." Why?

US Chemical Weapon Storage Facilities (map from GlobalSecurity.org)
The map above shows chemical weapon storage facilities inside the United States. Draw a line on the map from New York City to the facility in Newport, Indiana. The line will go almost directly over Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Specifically, the line does go over the seismograph that recorded the sonic boom. And, a line from Toledo to that line intersects the first line at almost 90 degrees — the perfect path for intercepting an unarmed target, because of the broadest radar coverage. Fighters of the 180 th from Toledo were dispatched east when they took off. Wasn't there already significant fighter coverage in the East? But, only the Toledo unit was between the origin of all the known hijackings and the Newport chemical plant.

The plant has recently been selected for total closure. But, at the time of the "9-11" attacks, the Newport plant was in an especially vulnerable state. Army contractors at Newport were in the middle of a $295-million project to dispose of our country's only strategic stockpile of VX nerve-agent gas. This chemical weapon kills almost instantly, and is designed to spread over a large area. A few artillery shells — containing about a pound of VX each, and properly placed on a breezy battlefield — can kill thousands of troops faster than they can don their gas masks. But, the Newport plant contained 1,269 tons of VX gas. The heat from a burning jetliner would have produced an updraft that could have dispersed the VX gas over a much larger area than a conventional battlefield.

The prevailing winds in that part of the country are normally from the northwest. The weather on 11 September 2001 was dramatically clear, with a cool, dry Autumn breeze — perfect weather conditions for the spreading of VX gas. If the initial plume of VX was sent high into the sky by the heat of the airliner crash, and then the cool winds spread the deadly cloud, the killing agent could fall over a wide area. And, given the prevailing winds, the area hardest hit would be our nation's "coal country." Given that the terrorists were from oil-producing Islamist countries, damaging America's coal production would make us even more dependent upon Middle East oil. Given that America's financial and military command centers had already been attacked, wouldn't it make perfect sense to simultaneously attack a weapon stockpile, and use that stockpile to damage America's energy production? (If you think this scenario sounds bad, it is. But, it is not nearly as bad as the scenario to which I alluded in Part 2. I have chosen not to report that one, because of its ghastly consequences.) This sort of domino effect is not mere speculation, nor is it hype. I know, because my last military assignment was in the office that prepares and trains for chemical warfare defense. (Ironically, that assignment was made by then-Colonel Paul A. Weaver, Jr.)

The MSM has tried to imply that Flight 93 was not pursued, because it was not a threat to Washington. That is the main point in claiming that no interceptors were near it. Now that we know why Flight 93 might have been pursued, even before it turned toward Washington, is there any reason to think that the Air Force did not regard it as a threat? And, if it was a threat, wasn't it their job to confront it? Does the evidence show that a confrontation occurred?

Seismograph in southern PA, 11 Sep 2001 (source: Action Report Online)
Sonic booms from aircraft leave a seismic "footprint" on the ground below. (This is a well-known scientific phenomenon. But, like other aspects of the Flight 93 evidence, the Internet page about a NASA research project on supersonic footprints is now missing.) Such a footprint was recorded in south-central Pennsylvania at 0922 hours on 11 September 2001. The "N-curve" shown above is unique to sonic booms. The time and location of the sonic boom are entirely consistent with an effort to block any airliner hijacked from the East Coast before it can get near the Newport chemical weapon facility. Five minutes after this sonic boom was recorded, passenger Tom Burnett calls his wife from his cell phone and reports that Flight 93 has been hijacked. This grammatical emphasis is important, because the pilots may have been able to report the hijacking electronically before all the passengers even knew that a problem existed. The FAA had already contacted NORAD at 0916 hours to report that they suspected that Flight 93 had been hijacked. That was six minutes prior to the sonic boom.

The only supersonic civilian aircraft, the Concorde, did not have any flight routes over southern Pennsylvania — even before the Concorde fleet was grounded due to a series of mishaps. And, all civilian aircraft nationwide had been ordered to land at the nearest airport. So, only a military aircraft could have produced a sonic boom in that area at that time on that day. The military has denied pursuing Flight 93. But, given the danger inherent in the Newport scenario, and given that three other devastating attacks had already taken place, wouldn't they have a duty to shoot down Flight 93?

Part 4 will examine other aspects of the evidence that Flight 93 was shot down.

Applicable quotes

"What is done in secret shall be shouted from the housetops...." —Jesus Christ

"What is truth?" —Pontius Pilate

"Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom." —Thomas Jefferson


© Tom Kovach