I Apologize If This Is Getting Tedious

...but there are two ways to treat the flight 93 hijacking story: either to try to make sense of the official story or to assume it was fake.

As I posted in my last post, if we assume the flight 93 hijacking was real, then there simply has to be a cover-up of some sort.

There is NO FUCKING WAY that flight 93 was not tracked and intercepted by NORAD (although it is interesting to think exactly what kind of plane was being tracked by NORAD-- the real flight 93 or some fake decoy flight).

But beyond that, there are too many reasons to think that the flight 93 hijacking was fake, as I went over in this post:

Reasons to think the flight 93 hijacking was fake:

1) there was a live-fly hijacking exercise happening on 9/11

2) the pilots really should not have been taken by surprise by the hijackers-- they should have alerted air traffic control of the hijackers long before the hijackers entered the cockpit:

a) the pilots and flight attendants of the flight had a special procedure planned for a hijacking, they were aware of the possibility of a hijacking

b) at least 8 minutes elapsed between when the hijack was first reported and when the struggle in the cockpit occurred. This should have given the flight attendants plenty of time to warn the pilots of the hijacking. The pilots could have easily radioed Air Traffic Control or pushed the hijacking signal on the transponder-- but they didn't!

c) the pilots should have known about the WTC attacks and hijackings shortly after 9am, almost a half hour before the cockpit struggle

d) United Airlines was warning all its flights of hijackings after the WTC attacks, the flight 93 pilots should have received the warning

3) the passenger phone calls have seriously conflicting accounts of the hijacking, suggesting that the passengers may have been "making up" details of the hijackings or that the "passengers" were working from an intentionally misleading script

4) the fact that shortly before 10am, someone piloting flight 93 requested a flight path to go to Washington DC. Why would a hijacker do this? This sounds more like a pilot decided to call off the hijacking exercise and pilot a normal course.

5) the evidence that flight 93 was damaged by a missile before it crashed is strong. One reason a shoot-down may have occurred is that they didn't want the flight 93 pilots and passengers to be able to talk about the hijacking drill.

Reasons to think the flight 93 hijacking was NOT fake:
1) the unlikelihood that a "live-fly hijacking drill" would be run with ordinary passengers
2) the unlikelihood that the passengers could fake their reactions in the phone calls
3) the unlikelihood that this could be covered up.

While it is up to you to decide which set of reasons is stronger, I will point out that in the "Reasons to think the flight 93 hijacking was NOT fake" list:
1) we don't really know the key people on the flight were ordinary random passengers
2) only some of the passengers-- the key ones such as Todd Beamer and Jeremy Glick-- had to fake their reactions
3) lots of things are covered up about 9/11 and so saying there couldn't be a cover-up doesn't fly (so to speak). Moreover, the crash of flight 93, by whatever reason, is clearly being cover-up.

In the "Reasons to think the flight 93 hijacking was fake" list:
1, 2 and 3 are hard facts. 4 and 5 are speculative but suggestive.

Last night I actually found one other reason to think the flight 93 hijacking was fake.

This has to do with the radio transmissions made from flight 93 heard over the airwaves by air traffic control and other planes. As Joe Vialls explains:

...the Cleveland Center tape proves unequivocally that the “Arab Hijacker with Bomb” calls were complete fakes.
At the start of the tape a young American voice, which appears to be Flight 93’s co-pilot, confirms check-in at the aircraft’s intended cruising altitude of Flight Level 350 [35,000 feet] , and then looks for conflicting air traffic as instructed by Cleveland Center. But after these two brief exchanges with Cleveland there are no further proven transmissions from United Flight 93 at all. Nor are there any proper RDF [radio-direction-finding] logs available to prove the point of origin of the wholly independent “bomb” claims, which could easily have been transmitted from another unidentified aircraft, or from the ground.
Paradoxically, if we allow that the initial two calls from United Flight 93 regarding cruising altitude and conflicting traffic are genuine, then there is a very strong case for claiming the later calls about a "bomb” did NOT originate from the same aircraft. The quality of the first transmission is Signal strength 5, Readability 5, (5/5) while the quality of the later “bomb” transmissions is at best 5/1. It is ridiculous to claim that transmission quality would [or could] drop suddenly from 5/5 to 5/1 because a mythical “hijacker” was “excited”...

(snip)
Then it was time for phase two, i.e. leaving guttural and thus menacing “bomb” messages on the Cleveland working channel tape, which the perpetrators knew would eventually be examined by NTSB and FAA investigators. The trick here is to notice their exact timing. “Panicky Hijackers” have no regard at all for correct radio telephony procedures because they don't know what they are, so any genuine uncoordinated "panicky" transmissions would have certainly overlapped other aircraft communications on this busy channel, resulting in severely distorted and partly unreadable threats.
The unknown perpetrators of this covert operation were not stupid, and knew that for the faked threats to be “correctly” interpreted by the authorities later, they would have to be transmitted precisely in between other aircraft working the Cleveland channel. Notice on the tape itself, that each of the two “we have a bomb on board” messages is very carefully inserted BETWEEN transmissions from Cleveland Center and the other aircraft. There is not the slightest trace of overlap. Though a “panicky hijacker” might accidentally manage this once with a long garbled transmission, the odds of him doing it twice in a row in a ten-minute period are more than ten million-to-one against.

While I don't know about these specific odds, it strikes me as extremely unlikely that the hijacker, broadcasting over the common frequency "by accident", would nicely insert their transmissions into open air space. This seems to me to strongly indicate that the "bomb" transmission was a fake, meant to be heard, which throws into question the whole flight 93 hijacking. This, taken together with the other reasons I mentioned for thinking the flight 93 hijacking was fake, is as close as one can get to solid proof using evidence that is in the public record. The actual tape recording of these transmissions can be heard at The Memory Hole.