The Lingering Questions of Flight 93

Many questions linger -

But while Greengrass tackled everything known about the flight - which the government believes was purposely crashed by its four al Qaeda hijackers because of the uprising by passengers who'd learned of the World Trade Center crashes - there were things the movie could not address.

Those are the unknowns of Flight 93.

Today, few but the most radical skeptics about 9/11 would question the events at the core of "United 93," the struggle with heroic passengers that was captured on the cockpit voice recording played in a Virginia courtroom earlier this month.

But other questions remain - most notably about the government's response. Why was the hijacked jet not intercepted by the military jets that had been sent aloft after the Trade Center strikes? Did President Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney order a shoot-down as the plane neared Washington? And why didn't it happen?

"Unfortunately, we have yet to have a serious and honest investigation into what happened on 9/11," said Paul Thompson, the author of "The Terror Timeline: Year by Year, Day by Day, Minute by Minute."

Thompson believes that officials should still be held accountable for what he considers a flawed military response.

Here are some other questions:
Q. Why haven't we heard cockpit recordings nor seen the flight-data recording from the other three flights?

A. Government agencies have insisted that the "black boxes" (actually orange) found at the Pentagon were too badly damaged, while the four in New York were never recovered, which was a first.

However, the Daily News reported in 2004 that two Ground Zero rescue workers claimed they helped the FBI recover three of the four "black boxes" there. Last year, Philadelphia free-lance writer Dave Lindorff reported that a National Transportation Safety Board source told him: "Off the record, we had the boxes. You'd have to get the official word from the FBI as to where they are, but we worked on them here."

I have two progress reports

I have two progress reports to give.

I am going forward with my plan to give a 9/11 presentation in two weeks time at my technical university. I have reserved an auditorium and posted announcements on physical bulletin boards. I shall 1) destroy disinformation, 2) cast severe doubt on the official story and 3) put forward the idea that it may have been an inside job. Hopefully the audience will be sizeable and will consist of lecturers as well as engineering students.

Before I went ahead with the above plan, I consulted staff at the structural engineering department. I recruited an ad-hoc team of two professors and one "almost-professor" to view footage of the Building 7 collapse. I didn't tell them what they were about to see (I just asked them 'have you heard of the case called building seven?'), and I had edited out the FDNY firemen.

One of them stated that "it went down smoothly" and there was some general surprise that fire could have done that. We also observed that the roof structure fell first. After I told them what building it was, they recalled hearing something about it at the time, but nothing since. One of them asked "so what do the rumors state" and I gave a brief rundown of the central points.

There was a very brief discussion about the WTC 1 and 2 collapses, and the consensus was that there was nothing surprising about floor failure. However, one of the professors made a remark about there being "something wrong with the dynamics" -- ie. total collapse.

A very positive meeting, all in all. One of them even made a remark about no resolution to JFK! I didn't want to outstay my welcome, so I just left a summary I had made about WTC7. I have invited them to come to my presentation, or at least to send a representative.

Additionally, I and some other Finnish 9/11 people may go forward with a plan to make a no-speculation 9/11 video.

More developments on these items to come!

-- Antti able911[at]usa[.]com

(had to post that here since

(had to post that here since an open thread did not appear to be forthcoming, even after contacting the admins) more--

Regarding materials, I'm mostly all set, but if I need anything I'll just ask. I could use larger versions of these two images for promotion purposes:
(I will insert a speech bubble, "They're onto us! Torch the evidence!") (who is that btw?)
("And they bought it! MWAHHAH HAHA HAHHA")

Additionally for later use:
(thinking bubble: mathematical calculations of war casualties)

Two days of infamy

A good picture of the Pentagon from a viewpoint that the (supposed) hijackers would have seen upon entering the area for the first time would be good for the "that's where Rumsfeld would have been" effect. -- is this it?

Oh, and I've seen a picture somewhere of Osama looking coy, you know, a "hey I didn't do it" look.

Able, Sorry dood, haven't


Sorry dood, haven't had a need for an open thread the last few nights, we aren't on any real schedule.

My bad, and thanks for the info! :)

Able, hey, record it if you


hey, record it if you can, and hook us up :)

Will Bunch is the man.

Will Bunch is the man.

Hey guys, I haven't seen the

Hey guys, I haven't seen the Flight 93 cockpit transcript mentioned anywhere on this site (or any other 9/11 truth sites for that matter), butI stumbled onto it while exploring Wikipedia, it's on the WikiSource site:

Is it just me, or does the text in the transcript make almost no sense at all?