I'm not really up to speed on the 9/11 details. I'm sure this has been discussed, so I apologize for the rehash. I had not heard about a secondary debris field. Also, an interesting question near the end:
<<< The professed lag in reacting to the hijacking of Flight 93 is just as
striking. NORAD acknowledged learning of the hijacking at 9:16, yet
the Pentagon's position is that it had not yet intercepted the plane
when it crashed in a Pennsylvania field just minutes away from
Washington, D.C. at 10:06, a full 50 minutes later.
In fact, there are a couple of other circumstantial details of the crash,
discussed mostly in Pennsylvania newspapers and barely noted in
national wire stories, that suggest Flight 93 may have been shot down
after all. First, officials never disputed reports that there was a
secondary debris field six miles from the main crash site, and a few
press accounts said that it included one of the plane's engines. A
secondary debris field points to an explosion on board, from one of
two probable causes--a terrorist bomb carried on board or an Air
Force missile. And no investigation has ever intimated that any of the
four terror crews were toting explosives. They kept to simple tools
like the box cutters, for ease in passing security. Second, a handful
of eyewitnesses in the rural area around the crash site did report
seeing low-flying US military jets around the time of the crash.
Which only raises another question. Shooting down Flight 93 would
have been incontestably the right thing to do under the
circumstances. More than that, it would have constituted the only
evidence of anything NORAD and the Pentagon had done right that
whole morning. So why deny it? Conversely, if fighter jets really
were not on the scene when 93 crashed, why weren't they? How
could that possibly be? >>>
babelogue.citypages.com:8080/sperry/stories/storyReader$526 |
