A useful set of articles on a previous jet that went down,
the one off of Long Island a few yrs. ago is at the New York
Review of Books website. By Elaine Scarry, who wrote, "The Body
In Pain, " on torture for Oxford Univ. Press. Conjectures about
electro magnatic pulses and such. Michael Pugliese
>From: Andrew Hagen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: 9/13/01 11:11:36 AM
>
>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
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>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
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>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
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
