FLIGHT UA93: "LET'S ROLL!"
Was it shot down in Pennsylvania on 9/11 by a US fighter jet?

Analysis © 2005 by G. Edward Griffin
Published 2005 October 13.

There is an impressive body of evidence that, on 9/11, United Flight 93 that crashed in a field in Pennsylvania was shot down by a U.S. military fighter in spite of official denial. It has been speculated that, when its flight path headed back to Washington, decisive action was taken. Here is a summary of the evidence:

1. The official version of the destruction of Flight 93 is that it descended sharply, flipped over at the last instant, and ploughed into the ground at a steep angle. Large planes that nosedive into the ground at a steep angle leave a crater at the point of impact and throw debris several hundred feet in all directions. In the case of Flight 93, there was a crater and there was a field of debris extending several hundred feet. However, there also was debris scattered over a much larger area. A one-ton piece of engine landed 1800 feet – over a third of a mile – from the crash site.[1] A secondary debris field was six miles from the primary field. Many objects, including chunks of plastic and pieces of passenger seats were retrieved eight miles from the crash site on the other side of a mountain ridge. Only planes that come apart in the air create this pattern.[2]

2. At least six witnesses reported seeing a military jet fighter circling the area immediately before and after the crash. At first the government claimed there was no other aircraft in the area but later said a civilian plane had been requested to inspect the crash and report its location. Note, however, that witnesses saw the jet before the crash.[3] The name of the civilian pilot or the identity of the craft has never been divulged.

3. Passenger Edward Felt made an emergency 911 call from the plane and told the operator that there had been an explosion on board and that he could see white smoke. Phone contact was lost shortly after that. The tape recording of this call was confiscated by the FBI, and the operator who took the call was ordered not to discuss it. However, Felt’s family members were allowed to listen to the recording (or at least part of it) and heard the comments about the explosion and smoke. They, too, were warned not to discuss the matter – on the basis that it might jeopardize the prosecution of Zacarias Moussaoui, who was to be tried for masterminding the 9/11 attacks.[4]

4. Staff members of the Commission to Investigate 9/11 have said that Vice President Dick Cheney – who was in personal command of the military response that morning – gave the command to shoot down Flight 93 shortly after it headed toward the Capitol. As reported by the New York Post:

Notice the word “about.” The exact time of this order is critical, because the government claims that Flight 93 crashed at 10:03 A.M. If this is correct and if Cheney’s order was executed at 10:15, then Flight 93 had already crashed when the order was given. This, however, does not close the matter. It is reported that at least one phone call from a passenger on board abruptly ended at 10:03 and, according to the government, the time on the recovered black-box recorder also was 10:03. However, prior to the release of the 9/11 Commission Report, the time of the crash was generally accepted at 10:06, not 10:03. That is because an earth tremor had been recorded on regional seismographs at 10:06, and it was consistent with what would be expected from a large plane impact in that area. There was no tremor at 10:03 or any other time near it. Why the fuss over three minutes? Because 10:06 brings the time within only nine minutes of Cheney’s order, and it is close enough to be “about” 10:15. But then, so is 10:03.

What can we conclude from all this? While the evidence is compelling, it is not conclusive. The facts are still trickling in and, if eventually it is proved that Flight 93 was shot down on orders from above, it will be doubly painful in view of the legendary “let’s roll” heroism of the passengers. Of course, that still would not detract from their unquestionable heroism, nor would it mean that whoever issued the order acted improperly. In fact, most people would agree that it would have been the right thing to do. The public is dismayed at the fact that fighter jets failed to respond soon enough to prevent the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, but what is usually not discussed in connection with this is that, if they had arrived in time, they would have been expected to shoot down those flights as well. Otherwise, there would be no reason for the pursuit. So why would the government cover up the facts?

At this point, one can only speculate that (1) Flight 93 was shot down on orders from either the White House or the Pentagon; (2) it was the right thing to do under the circumstances; and (3) the Administration lied about it because of possible political backlash. The passengers rightfully had achieved hero status in the eyes of the public, and the fact that the plane never made it to Washington for an attack on the Capitol Building or the White House had been attributed to their courageous and decisive action. The oft-repeated phrase “Let’s roll!” shouted by passenger Todd Beamer (shown at left) as he led a desperate charge of passengers against the hijackers became the battle cry of an outraged America determined to fight back. It would have been politically unthinkable to tamper with that image, especially if doing so required having to acknowledge that these brave Americans had been killed by their own military. As is often the case with government, appearances are more important than reality.[6]

The following items relating to this topic are available from
The Reality Zone, http://www.realityzone.com or (800) 595-6596.

911 In Plane Site
This video presents evidence that the World Trade Towers were not struck on 9/11 by commercial airliners but by military tankers flown by remote control – and that the Pentagon was not struck by a Boeing 757 but by a smaller aircraft, perhaps a military drone. Please note that we do not endorse this view for reasons stated in my analysis entitled "Burning Questions," which can be found here or in the Issues section of our Freedom Force web site. However, we believe that the program raises valid questions that cry out for answers. The DVD also contains a bonus section revealing that, at the bombing of the Murrah Federal building in Oklahoma City, there was not just one bomb, but four: one in the Ryder truck at the curb and three inside the building. At the same time that the truck bomb went off, one of the inside bombs also detonated, and that is what destroyed the center of the building. The other two failed to detonate. It was stated that these interior charges were more powerful than the nitrate bomb on the street. All three of the interior explosives together would have demolished the building, causing a collapse similar to the Twin Towers in New York. You will see live TV coverage confirming the presence of these bombs within the first hour following the explosion. You will see bomb squads called in to remove the undetonated charges. One live report on TV explains that the unexploded bombs could allow experts to determine who made them. But then the FBI took charge of the investigation, and the bombs inside the building were never mentioned again. Is this fact or fantasy? See the evidence and judge for yourself. (More)

The Final Report
on the Bombing of the Murrah Federal Building
Compiled by Charles Key, former Oklahoma state representative and member of The Oklahoma Bombing Investigation Committee. Here is the product of six years of meticulous research showing that the government had prior knowledge of the bombing, yet did nothing to alert the victims, and that the building was destroyed by bombs planted inside the building, not by the truck bomb outside. You may have heard these allegations before, but here is the hard evidence. (More)

TWA 800
The Search for the Truth
This documentary shows that the official story of the destruction of TWA Flight 800, which blew up in 1996 after takeoff from Kennedy Airport, is wrong – and that there is a cover-up at the highest levels to conceal evidence. Several plausible theories are presented as to the real cause, but the main issue is not that Flight 800 was shot down but that the government has concealed the evidence! You cannot afford to be uninformed about this event. (More)

The Hidden Agenda
Merging America into World Government
In this video interview by G. Edward Griffin, Norman Dodd, Congressional investigator of tax-exempt foundations, reveals their concealed plan for merging America into world government based on the model of collectivism.

Tragedy and Hope
A History of The World in Our Time
by Professor Carroll Quigley
This is the book that blows the lid off the secret organization created by Cecil Rhodes to quietly gain control over nations of the world and establish a global government based on the model of collectivism. (More)

The Anglo-American Establishment
by Professor Carroll Quigley
Quigley states: "What is not so widely known is that Rhodes in five previous wills left his fortune to form a secret society,... And what does not seem to be known to anyone is that this secret society ... continues to exist to this day." (More)

No Place to Hide
The Strategy and Tactics of Terrorism
This video removes the mystery from terrorism. On the surface, it appears to be irrational and counter-productive but, when the long-range strategy is understood, it becomes recognizable as part of a larger plan to weaken and destroy target governments. Here are the documented facts that show the detailed operation of the internnational terrorist network. The program offers powerful visual images and amazing historical footage. Written and narrated by G. Edward Griffin. (More)

Who's Who of the Elite
The Bilderbergs, CFR, and Trialateralists
What are the names of the collectivists who actually rule the world and what positions do they hold? This compilation answers that question. Indexed by name and category. (More)

[1] “Flight 93 probe involved trooper with local ties,” by Joe Pinchot, Herald (Sharon, Pa.) Oct. 8, 2001, http://www.sharon-herald.com/localnews/recentnews/0110/ln100801c.html.

[2] Federal authorities suggested that, even though the plane nosedived into the ground, the engine bounced 1800 feet from impact and the lighter objects were blown eight miles by the wind, which incidentally was ten miles per hour that day. That means they would need 48 minutes to travel the distance, but witnesses eight miles away saw debris falling from the sky almost immediately following the crash. See: “What Did Happen to Flight 93?” by Richard Wallace, The Mirror, (Britain), Sept. 12, 2002, http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12192317&method=full&siteid=50143. Also “Investigators locate black box from Flight 93,” by Tom Gibb, James O’Toole and Cindi Lash, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Sept. 13, 2001, http://post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetp3.asp.

[3]"What Did Happen to Flight 93?" op. cit.

[4] This was denied by the New York Times in its March 27, 2002 issue, but was confirmed by The Washington Post and especially The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette which featured a detailed report on the Felt family’s experience at the FBI meeting where the tapes were played. See “Jetliner Was Diverted Toward Washington Before Crash in PA,” by Charles Lane and Phillip Pan, Washington Post, September 12, 2001, http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=nation/nationalsecurity&contentId=A14327-2001Sep11. Also “It hurt to listen,” by Steve Levin, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, April 21, 2002, http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/20020421flight930421p1.asp.

[5] “Doubt on 9/11 “shootdown order,” by Vincent Morris, New York Post, Oct 5, 2004, http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nypost/707460851.html?did=707460851&FMT=ABS&FMTS=FT&date=Oct+5%2C+2004&author=VINCENT+MORRIS+Post+Correspondent&pub= New+York+Post&desc=DOUBT+ON+9%2F11+%27SHOOTDOWN%27+ORDER.

[6] At first glance, it may seem that authorizing the destruction of Flight 93 would be inconsistent with the principles of individualism, which state that individuals may not be sacrificed for the so-called greater good of the greater number. However, such action is consistent with individualism when viewed in context of protecting life. As stated in The Future Is Calling; Part One (The Chasm), we are justified in taking the life of another to protect our own lives, but that justification does not arise from the superiority of our numbers. It arises from each of us separately. This airline episode complicates the issue, because the decision to take the lives of a planeload of passengers was made by those whose lives were not threatened at the moment. This leads to the related question of whether we are justified in using deadly force to protect the lives of others as well as ourselves. Most people would say yes. In fact, they would say it is not only justifiable; it is obligatory. However, we sometimes are faced with a conflict between two people or two groups and are compelled to choose sides. This is where numbers may actually make a difference. For example: Two rafts are headed toward the precipice of a huge waterfall. One raft has one person in it and the other has ten. We have only one rope to throw and time for only one rescue. Which raft do we save? Clearly, assuming everything else is equal, we must rescue the one with the most people. If everything else is not equal, then other criteria may come into play, such as the seriousness of the threat, the chances for success, or the perceived merit of those to be saved. If the single passenger were a great inventor or poet or philosopher or leader while the ten were murderers who had escaped from prison, the decision might be different. However, while it is true that the decision may be based on numeric superiority or some other logic, the justification is not. The justification comes from our individual obligation to defend the lives of others. Therefore, if Woodrow Wilson or FDR truly believed that the sacrifice of a few thousand Americans was necessary to save the lives of millions of other Americans, their actions would have been consistent with the principles of individualism. However, if they merely feigned this concern as an excuse for other agendas, such as the expansion of economic and political power or building a New World Order “closer to the hearts desire,” then they were following the ethics of collectivism.

For best printing quality and optimum placement of images and footnotes, click here

Back