Talk:United Airlines Flight 93/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Regarding usage of cellular telephones

Much of what happened on the plane has been reconstructed from the many phone calls made by passengers and crew, mainly through cellular phones, although doubts have been raised about whether in-flight calls using cellular phones were technically possible in 2001.

I was under the impression that airphones were used, and the only true, and verifiable, account of cell phone usage was made by Edward Felt when he called 911, and that call was cut short.

--- CeeCee Lyles also was alleged to have used a cellphone. http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011028flt93lylesbiop8.asp There were a few cellphone calls, none of which are possible at either the altitude or the speed.

Alexander Dewdney's The Cellphone and Airfone Calls from Flight UA93 has a list of the calls and his conclusions on why they are not real.

Flight renumbered

This flight was renumbered from Flight 93 to Flight 81 in October 2001 out of respect for those who died. Amongst the first passengers to fly this route was Lisa Beamer, wife of Todd Beamer.

Airlines don't change the flight numbers out of respect for anyone, but because the flight numbers of crashed planes become infamous instantly, hampering ticket sales. I find it appaling that the United spin doctors came up with that "out of respect..." line -- this is standard practice in all crashes. Is anyone else for removing that bit out the article? Markonen 16:54, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hi. The above wording was the result of a compromise that came about earlier this year. See the talk pages for Flight 11 to learn what the details were. It also addresses the spin doctors comment that you made. Arno 07:20, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hi. Flight 81 not longer refers to the flight from Newark to San Francisco. The cloest flight is currently named "Flight 191", scheduled to depart at 7:45am every day. Check United's website for details.

The article references two distinct flights as being on the 93 route. This is the source of the contradict tag. Please resolve.

White smoke

What is this about?

For instance, according to his own widow, passenger Edward Felt did not report seeing 'white smoke' pouring into the toilet from where he was making a phone call from the plane

He probably didn't report seeing pink elephants either, so what? AxelBoldt 00:52 Jan 3, 2003 (UTC)

There have been a number of reports that a passenger - named in later ones as Edward Felt - reported seeing white smoke pouring into the toilet from where he was making a phone call. These reports have been discredited. An example of one of these incorrect reports can be found on http://www.unansweredquestions.net/timeline/2002/mirror091302.html

Arno

I've removed an entire section that argues that he did maybe see white smoke for the above reason. Arno 06:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Timing

Another unresolved matter, related somewhat to the first, is about the timing of the terrorists.

What exactly is unresolved here? The subsequent speculation, that Flight 93 was supposed to hit a Washington target around the same time as the Pentagon ended up being hit, is useful and interesting speculation, but I don't see what about this is unresolved. The plane was 40 minutes late due to congestion -- how could the hijackers have taken this into account?

As you say, the plane was 40 minutes late in departing, and it's unclear as to how this affected the plans of the hijackers. Did they blindly adhere to their original plan , despite it badly behind schedule, or not? If not, then its possible that some other target other than an obvious one like the White House was intended, as those who organised the attacks must surely have guessed that such places would be evacuated 40 minutes after the Pentagon crash.

I personally happen to think that the hijackers didn't modify their plans, and that the Flight 93 strike did indeed become 40 minutes behind schedule. I suspect that the hijackers would have been too brainwashed to do otherwise. But this is unproven speculation. Ergo, no article inclusion. It is best to list this matter as unresolved.

A number of recent changes

Arno made some changes recently, and I wanted to comment.

• "They deduced that their flight was on a similar mission, and they made a decision to attempt to take over the flight from the hijackers." was removed as redundant. I think the article would be better with the sentence back in. I think it may be obvious, but I don't think it's redundant, and it's good to state the obvious.

I removed this? I don't recall, and I would have left it in. Arno 06:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• The "Roll it"/"Let's roll" paragraph was removed. I had originally added in this paragraph, based on a NYT story. But once you removed it I did a little research, and you're right. The NYT and I were wrong. A passenger said "Roll it", but there's no reason to think it was the same phrase that Lisa Beamer overheard.

OK. I'd forgotten that I removed it! Arno 06:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, that was Lisa Jefferson who overheard that statement, not Lisa Beamer. Arno 03:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• "The flight data recorder shows that the pilot rocked the plane to try to stop the passenger's attack before putting it into an inverted dive at 10:02:23." was removed. I don't understand why. Is it incorrect?

I think I did this because the passage was in the wrong area. Arno 06:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on the page. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 14:35, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Listing the passengers we know who fought back

There is a rule not to create "memorials" to 9/11 victims on Wikipedia. That generally makes sense, since listing 3000 victims is a lot. Plus there is a seperate Wikipedia site listing all victims.

But listing the half dozen passengers that we know fought back against the hijackers on Flight 93 (based on their calls to family and others) does make sense. I think their roles (i.e., Beamer, Burnett, etc.) are significant enough and newsworthy enough for a brief mention in the Flight 93 Wikipedia article (basically one sentance, also noting that other unnamed passengers may have helped too), with small seperate bio stubs for the ones we know who fought back. If anything, those few passengers may have saved that aircraft from crashing into the White House or Capital. It is a legitimate historical fact worth noting, especially given the fact that the terrorist hijackers are given extensive bios on Wikipedia. Norweigan Forest 00:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone wonder how they were able to make calls that high into the air at those times when the technology to call in those elevations werent possible in 2001? Has anyone heard the akward conversations of some of the odd calls? What about hearing that all together the entire flgiht 93 was landed in a clevland airport for evacuation

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=85019

Fifth hijacker?

I have just created a new article, Zacharias Moussaoui. He was indicted by the US DOJ on Conspiracy to Commit Aircraft Piracy, et al. on December 2001 [1]. Can we document this? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

There was already an article: Zacarias Moussaoui. Mirror Vax 14:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

map

A GFDL map of the flightpath would be nice. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 13:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. (SEWilco 04:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC))

Controversy

Is there really a controversy over the memorial? The only source cited is from a ideological (presumably right-wing) blog, making it far from objective. Unless there's some other source, I'll change the section to make the controversy sound less significant, which it appears to me to be. -Tjss 00:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hijackers' ID Theft

This part of the Trivia section was totally unclear, and named one hijacker that wasn't even on flight 93. I fixed this according to the cited article. Just wanted to let someone know what had been tinkered with and why. --TurabianNights 02:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Flight 93 shot down?

Wikipedia is usually really good at listing in detail all conspiracy theories. This one is suprisingly absent.Travb 21:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

found it in an old edit:

There has been speculation that US authorities shot down Flight 93 to stop it reaching Washington. But the 9/11 Commission Report describes that the hijackers had decided to "finish it off" just before the plane crashed, and that the authority to shoot down passenger planes was not transmitted until after the flight had already crashed. This topic is covered under misinformation and rumors. Travb 21:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I still believe this flight was shot down. Here is the link to back up my suspicions.[2]216.174.53.37 02:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a great deal of evidence that Flight 93 suffered some form of explosion in the air before it crashed. It has been reported in many places, including a serious BBC documentary. I do not believe that this claim deserves to be relegated to a "conspiracy theories" subpage. Rls 22:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100%. These were serious allegations, not conspiracy theories. The White House was asked about this by Helen Thomas during a White House press briefing. The allegation was that the US gov't did not want to admit shooting down the plane because the relatives of the victims would have questioned the necessity of it. Also, last year while in Afghanistan (I think, or may have been Iraq) Rumsfeld "misspoke" and mentioned Flight 93 being shot down. The White House later corrected it saying he meant to say it crashed. Either way, these were serious questions brought up in the media, proposed to government officials, and are not unbelievable by any standard to be mentioned as a conspiracy theory. After all, fighter jets were alerted to flight 93's presence weren't they? Fkh82 01:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to enter into this, but the questions on the web-site the user above cites to "back up my suspicions" can be answered by most people and betray the ignorance of the original author. The one about the F-15s was the most ludicrous--he seems to think finding a stationary major world city and an airliner without a transponder and off course and traveling at more than 500MPH are the same thing...--131.238.92.62 11:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

What about this? Sweetfreek 05:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The day after the plane went down in the UK there was a newspaper report I read that mentioned eye witnesses who said they saw an explosion before the plane crashed and guessed at a bomb. Ever since then, knowing the delay in takeoff, I suspected this plane to be shot down. Since then there have been reports of a white jet around the area, debris falling over a wider area than for a plane ditch. Rusmesfelt saying the plane was shot down and some bad government PR attempts to say that it wasn't shot down.

I don't subscribe to any other conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 attacks other than the US government officially denying the order to shoot the plane down. --Atpeace 10:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I have seen the Magazine of the University of St. Thomas and the article with the photo of their alumnus, Lt. Kuczynski '98, who said he was ordered to shoot down UAL Flight 93. The Journalism Department at UST is well respected and The Aquin newspaper has a long history of solid reporting. The fact that this story is not widely reported by the media does not mean it is not based on fact. The Tuskegee Syphilis Study, for example, was a reality during the 1930's, 1940's, 1950's, and 1960's even though it was not reported by the press until 1972. Thomist 03:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Netsnipe:

You were not being truthful when you wrote "rv another 'shoot down' order conspiracy theory that can't cite anything more substantial than a student newspaper as a source." You carefully removed the footnote section that referenced The Magazine of the University of St. Thomas. So you knew that something more than The Aquin newspaper alone was cited as a source and you deceptively concealed the additional and more authoritative source supporting the article. You unfairly characterized facts supported by these two University publications as "conspiracy theory." Wikipedia standards require that exceptional claims have exceptional evidence. You have charged the University of St. Thomas with publishing a "conspiracy theory." The magazine of a highly respected institution like the University of St. Thomas (Minnesota) is well qualified as a Wikipedia reliable published source. To make the exceptional charge that the University of St. Thomas is somehow not reliable demands some exceptional evidence to support that charge. Thomist 19:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear MisterHand:

Good scholarship is needed. It is poor scholarship to hurl names like "conspiracy theory" as a justification for taking down a section of the article documented by two university publications. Good scholarship requires evidence. There is evidence published by the University of St. Thomas that a U.S. Air Force pilot was given orders to shoot down the airliner. Please bear in mind that no one has said that the airliner was actually shot down, only that the order was given. The articles published by the University of St. Thomas offer new information concerning United Airlines Flight 93 that an Air Force E-3 Sentry was in pursuit with two F-16 fighters. Documented facts regarding Flight 93 should not be denied to Wikipedia readers because it does not agree someone's POV. Characterizing the Magazine of the University of St. Thomas as "conspiracy theory" is name-calling. If the magazine has the facts wrong regarding Lt. Kuczynski being ordered to shoot down the airliner then evidence should be presented to support that argument. Insulting names like "conspiracy theory" should not be treated the same as the evidence from a reliable academic source. Thomist 13:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Any there any other sources that collaborate this story, apart from student-published articles? -- MisterHand 15:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear MasterHand:

Thank you for asking. Yes, the University's quarterly magazine also published the story about their alumnus who graduated from their Air Force ROTC Chapter. The article in the magazine also published a photograph of Lt. Anthony Kuczynski in his flight suit. The magazine is not published on line but you can contact the UST magazine office at UST_MAG@STTHOMAS.EDU. The article appeared in The Magazine of The University of St. Thomas, Summer 2002, Vol. XVIII, Number 3, page 54., Published by The University of St. Thomas, St. Paul, Minnesota. Thomist 18:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

So with a straight face your are telling me that you believe this student from a student newspaper over experts, military, private, congress, and the thousands of people invovled in this "cover up."

Now if you want to believe a student newspaper over the government taht's your own loss. It's not reiable for a source here in the real world. Thomist, you need verifable sources to include your continued wikipedia campaign. That is wikipedia policy. C56C 01:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear C56C:

You should not call the Aquin newspaper "trash." The University's Department of Journalism may disagree with you. What evidence do you have that "The Aquin" is "trash?" What source do you have that Dave Forster, the Editor and author of the article is "trash?" University student journalists, especially student editors may disagree with your view that because they are students their articles are "trash."

How do you dismiss the The Magazine of the University of St. Thomas, which also featured an article? The Magazine source was removed by someone from the Flight 93 Wikipedia article but the reference is "The Magazine of The University of St. Thomas, Summer 2002, Vol. XVIII, Number 3, page 54., Published by The University of St. Thomas, St. Paul, Minnesota." The Magazine is professionally published and not produced by students. Is this magazine also trash?

I do not know that Congress or others have disagreed with the article, do you? No one has claimed there is a cover-up? The story is not contradicted by the military, IT COMES FROM A MILITARY SOURCE, Lt. Anthony Kuczynski, the E-3 pilot and ROTC graduate of the University of St. Thomas. Are you calling this pilot "trash?"

Just because the story has not been picked up and reported endlessly worldwide does not mean we must conclude it is "not true." It was an interesting local story about an alumnus that was published by a credible academic institution. The guy was in the air on September 11, 2001. Move on. It is not a conspiracy theory. Thomist 02:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The 9/11 report was a congressional report. Read it: [3]. They do not claim it was shot down. Funny you believe a student's article in a student paper and not a congressional report. C56C 04:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thomist, you were asked if you had any sources other than student newspapers, and your response is that the same university published a magazine? That's practically the same thing. Of course, we have no idea what this "reputable" magazine said because it's not online. Quit wasting everyone's time.--Smashingworth 04:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Cear C56C:

Please do not misstate the facts. The articles published by the Univesity of St. Thomas (Minnesota) did not say the plane was shot down. Both articles stated that the passengers downed the plane. There is no disagreement between the articles and the 911 commission on who downed the plane. Thomist 13:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I "misstated" facts? In a few sections above, Thomist wrote: "I have seen the Magazine of the University of St. Thomas and the article with the photo of their alumnus, Lt. Kuczynski '98, who said he was ordered to shoot down UAL Flight 93." A student newspaper directly conflicting with the outcome of a congressional report. I think you are now confused on what you are claiming. C56C 00:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Smashingworth:

I have no reason to doubt the credibility of the University of St. Thomas. Do you? Thomist 13:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracies

The whole section "other points of interest" severely subtracts from the entire article. It's not well written. Most of the references are from a single source. Some of the refereces don't match their description. In particular, the statement "That witnesses observed debris falling out of the sky, like confetti" isn't backed up by its reference. I haven't read all of the other pages referenced, but they're suspect.

I'd recommend a complete rewrite of that section. Perhaps a good amount of it should be removed entirely.

Those of you set on putting conspiracy theories into this page ought to focus on the page dedicated to conspiracy theories. Egumtow 00:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• What about those who would mention the FACT that the alleged cellphone calls could not have occurred. They were impossible. That isn't a conspiracy theory, it's a fact. It is okay to mention FACTS isn't it? <<<< EH? What sort of retarded gullible simpleton are you?

• Not to mention that "points of interest" is inherently POV. I'm changing the subject header to "Conspiracy Theories" for now. -- MisterHand 04:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "Points of interest" is not POV, though it is a clumsy term. "Conspiracy Theories" is however pretty strongly POV, so I am changing it to "Controversies". I would agree however that the section is poorly written as it is at present, and though I think a section discussing some of these issues is needed in the article I wouldn't oppose removing it as it stands in its present form. Rls 18:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favor of completely cutting this section, but if we must keep it, it needs to only contain fully referenced points. As such, I've cut the unreferenced points. Also, yesterday 24.4.180.197 deleted a bit of text, without explanation. I've restored the deleted text. Thirdly, a few days ago the section was called "trivia" then changed to "other points of interest". Neither is appropriate and they don't match the main subarticle, 9/11 conspiracy theories. If we're going to keep this section in the article, it's best to name the heading consistent with the subarticle. -Aude (talk | contribs) 18:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, several of the sources don't meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources. -Aude (talk | contribs) 18:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The cell phone call from Mark Bingham was faked, based on the following:

"Hello Mom this is Mark Bingham". No one says this to their mother.

The www.markbingham.org domain was registered the day after 9/11. A bit quick.

Mark Bingham has no social security number, no birth certificate, and no death certificate. He therefore cannot be a real person.

--- His cellphone call is impossible too. So is the cellphone call by CeeCee Lyle. All the cellphone calls were impossible.

CB Brooklyn 03:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of how inane I feel that info to be, I don't see a problem with someone adding that info into the conspiracy page (not on the general page), if you can find appropriate references for each of them. A query at Internic shows markbingham.org was registered on Sep 12 by a guy in Berkeley, probably an acquaintance of Mark Bingham's. Egumtow 07:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, Flight 93 landed at Clevland International Airport as stated by United officials. [4] Now what plane did crash at Pennsylvania? Certainly not Flight 93.

Fucking brilliant. The article describes a 767 out of Boston that made an emergency landing. United Flight 93 was a 757 from Newark. Ever consider the possibility that people make mistakes in the first hours of a crisis? Or would you like to tell me where Todd Beamer is? Sitting on a tahiti beach sipping margharitas?--Mmx1 20:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we should remove this section. I'm all for having the pages and I do believe that something is amiss with the whole situation, but if Flight 11 and the other flights don't have links to the conspiracy theories, this one shouldn't either. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 07:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

MOVIE

There is a movie now playing in theaters concerning this air flight. Martial Law 21:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC) :)

• The movie's not out yet, but it is mentioned in the article (in the Aftermath section), and it has it's own article: United 93 (film). -- MisterHand 22:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistency in article

Is it Flight 853 or Flight 191 which is the current closest equivalent? AnonMoos 09:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Article dedicated to US Gov's conspiracy theory

This article seems dedicated to perpetuating the US Gov's conspiracy theory about what caused the plane's crash. The 8 mile distance between known debris fields [5] makes the government theory "patent nonsense" and should, if anything, be the theory dubbed "conspiracy theory". The shot down theory has more science behind it and should be given at least equal weight in a truly NPOV article, it seems to me. 64.229.28.213 12:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• You're wrong on this. "NPOV" and "Balanced" are not the same thing. The fact is, most experts agree that Flight 93 crashed after a struggle between the passengers and the highjackers. Any alternate theories, if notable enough, should be mentioned, but they should not be given equal weight. Please read WP:NPOV#Undue_weight for the Wikipedia policy on this issue. -- MisterHand 14:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Most experts I've talked to, don't agree with you. I think you're only referring to the US govt and US media's cited experts, not all the others who think there's something suspicious.

The conspiracy section needs an NPOV tag. The first entry seems attempts to discredit a theory even as it presents it: "all very light material, such as paper and thin nylon the wind would easily blow". Bulbous 16:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I am a gullible simpleton and believe that George Bush did this. Instead of creating a webpage about this, I wish to change this encyclopedia to reflect my own retarded beliefs. Please add more.

Allegidly Removed

Why was the word 'allegidly' removed from four planes ______ hijacked? All that means is that is what they agree on.

• Probably because it is horrifically misspelled.--TurabianNights 20:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Good then correct the spelling to "allegedly"

other theories

I've heard that flight 93 didn't crash in shanksville at all. The people I heard it from claimed that the site was bare, no plane parts in sight. [6] They went on to note that the aircraft that was allegedly used for flight 93 was never scheduled for takeoff that day, and is *still* "active" (in service). I don't have another source for the second allegation, but I was wondering if the first should be put in the "other theories" section. Fresheneesz 19:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

There were almost no plane parts, and a hole only 30ft x 20ft and about 6ft deep. Very odd,it was another disappearing plane.

Oh wait, I actually spend a minute looking on Google, and found that the reason was the plane was travelling so fast. Sorry for being a retard.

Entrance into cockpit

What happened after the 'pilot' put the plane into a dive is supposition. The pilot put the plane into a dive by pushing the stick forward and yanking to the right thus flipping the plane on its back. At this point we know the passengers hadn't entered the cockpit, and its highly unlikely that they would have been able to do anything with the plane on its back in a vertical dive. Talk of struggles in the cockpit are pure supposition for which there is no evidence. Obviously, this is an emotional event and the passengers deserve recognition for their heroism but wikipedia needs to stick to the facts as they are known.

Factual vs Hypothetical (Flight 93 Article tainted)

Am new to Wikipedia so please bear with me.

Should a wikipedia article not be concerned with reporting the facts, primarily, and then dealing with specualtions and opinions secondly. The two seem very intricately woven into the article making it difficult to separate the two (distinct entities).

Flight 93 article has too many areas of conjecture with whoever putting in their viewpoint shaping what will become public opinion. I have often used Wikipedia to verify facts regarding things I have seen in movies or popular media with the ability to check sources an integral part of wikipedia's appeal.

For example

It has been speculated by some that she attempted to perform CPR on either Mark Rothenberg or one of the pilots and refused to stop when the hijackers ordered her to. This is pure speculation. (It would make a typical Hollywood movie plot yes) but I feel such biased speculation should not be included in the main article.

The Cockpit Storm also reads as if from a Hollywood script. Sensationalist and emotive it makes a reader lose objectivity. The content is obviously just a continuation of the previous header Passenger and Crew Phone Calls. I fail to see its (The Cockpit Storm) purpose in the article.

I am going to attempt to edit the article deleting the two statements above.

I would like to know what people think of these opinions or am I in the minority here and destined to see whatever makes a good story become fact? Elaxs 18:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur with deleting those two statements. If someone has a reliable source to substantiate "it has been speculated by some...", then perhaps it could be kept. But, as is, it's uncited and unverifiable and uses weasel words. -Aude (talk | contribs) 18:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I also concur, for all the same reasons previously given. -- MisterHand 19:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

did dick cheney admitted it?::

[7]

someone check that video if its true or not, or if its relevant

Crew and Passengers

I think we should include a list of everyone on this flight on this page (captain,officer,flight attendants,passengers,hijackers). What does everyone think?

One problem is that the list at http://sep11.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_September_11%2C_2001_attacks:_plane_passengers and the individual entries do not seem to be updated much. If sep11.wikipedia.org is meant as more of a tribute, I think the passenger list should be present on this page as factual information.Pixelface 00:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)pixelface

Flight 93 was headed in a northwest direction

I am new to wikipedia, please direct me where to put this information; it is unbaised and based all on fact.

"Crash debris found 8 miles away" "John Fleegle, an Indian Lake Marina employee, said FBI agents were skeptical of his reports about debris in the lake until they traveled to the lake shore Wednesday afternoon.

Fleegle, marina owner Jim Brant and two of Brant’s employees were among the dozens who witnessed the crash from Indian Lake. Fleegle had just returned to the marina to get fuel for a boat that had run out of gas when Carol Delasko called him into the drydock barn to watch news of the World Trade Center attack. “All of a sudden the lights flickered and we joked that maybe they were coming for us. Then we heard engines screaming close overhead. The building shook. We ran out, heard the explosion and saw a fireball mushroom,” said Fleegle, pointing to a clearing on a ridge at the far end of the lake.

Delasko, who ran outside moments later, said she thought someone had blown up a boat on the lake. “It just looked like confetti raining down all over the air above the lake,” she said.

Fleegle, Brant and a fellow marina worker, Tom Spinelli, jumped in a truck and rushed to the crash site.

In the woods, they saw only a crater and tiny pieces of debris.

Fleegle said he climbed on the roof of an abandoned cabin and tossed down a burning seat cushion that had landed there."

Debris Field by pittsburghlive.com note location of Indian lake

Location of Jim Brant when plane crossed over head —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freedomofthought (talk • contribs) .

Mainstream

Yes baby, we are going mainstream! --Striver 03:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• "This author spends more time talking about American reactions than providing evidence to advance his argument. He doesn't even name his socalled experts. I suggest he spend some time in front of the telly watching Air Crash Investigation and Seconds from Disaster. Aircraft engines and control surfaces will shear off as a result of steep fast dives.- Dan, Gerrards Cross, UK" User comments to that article about the book not the United Airlines Flight 93 itself Mieciu K 19:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)