As this series on Flight 93 continues, it has sparked some interesting reactions. Among them, I got an unsolicited e-mail from the senior United Airlines (UAL) investigator at the crash scene in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, on “9-11”. Retired UAL Captain Ray Brice and I exchanged a few e-mails about this series. He even agreed to give me a quotable statement: “ From my on sight [sic] investigation of UAL 93 it is my opinion that the B-757 was NOT shot down. As far as I could tell we never found any parts to that airplane that were not in the crater or could be explained as eject from the crater!” I’m not sure if Captain Brice’s statement is an honest mistake, or a deliberately misleading “red herring”. I’m inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, and call it an honest mistake. But, either way, both his stated facts and his conclusion are wrong. This part of the series will address the question of debris, and what it tells us. The results surprised even me.

Because terrorism is a criminal act, the FBI took over the crash investigation of Flight 93 from the NTSB — just as they did in the case of Flight 800 (and in violation of Federal law). Because it became an FBI criminal investigation, and because the investigations spawned by the “9-11” attacks continue to this day, there is no point in requesting any information from the FBI. It has been their policy for decades not to release details about an ongoing criminal investigation. (Most of the time, that policy is reasonable and necessary. But, in the case of a likely cover-up, it becomes very convenient for the Feds and very obstructive to the goals of a free press trying to keep the government accountable to its citizens.) I tried to get information from the NTSB, which is the agency with all the trained aircraft crash investigators, but they dutifully referred me to the FBI. One source that was at the crash scene during the early phases of the investigation told me that two crimes were committed in Shanksville that day: the hijacking, and “ the method in which the FBI investigated an air crash. To say they were inept is an understatement. No wonder there are rumors and unanswered questions. Just like TWA 800 come to think of it.” (Yes, my point exactly.)

I did request a copy of the accident investigation report from United Airlines; but, they never responded to my e-mail. I also got no response from the public relations department of Ask Jeeves, the company that sponsored the flawed Discovery Channel documentary. (I had specifically asked for a response from CEO Steve Berkowitz, who did an on-camera commentary in support of the documentary. That is rare for any advertiser; but, to his great credit, it was the only “commercial” during the broadcast.) The producers of the documentary also have not responded to my request for comment about this series of articles. The documentary was narrated by actor Kiefer Sutherland (whose grandfather — Tommy Douglas, an open Socialist — was responsible for implementing socialized medicine in Canada). Sutherland is both lead actor and executive producer of the Fox Broadcasting hit TV series “24”, which addresses issues related to terrorism. There has been no reply from Mr. Sutherland’s publicity agency (Wolf-Kasteler), which I contacted to get his reaction to this series of articles.

The e-mail exchange with Captain Brice did confirm something that was in eyewitness statements in a few news reports immediately after the crash. When the plane impacted the ground, it was vertical, inverted, and the fuselage was apparently intact. Picture doing a swan dive with a half roll at the apex of the dive — your head still hits the water first, and your feet are straight up in the air, but your face is pointed away from the diving board instead of toward it. This “attitude of impact” is consistent with the scenario that I first presented in Part 1 of this series: that Flight 93 was hit by a burst (or, more likely, two bursts) of 20-millimeter cannon fire from an Air Force interceptor — most likely an F-15, not an F-16. (This point addresses something that Sutherland stated in the TV documentary.) It also suggests something else about the crash sequence.

The attitude and condition of the aircraft at impact negates the scenario of a shoot-down by a missile. Both engines were recovered — essentially intact — from the direct vicinity of the impact point. If the airliner had been fired upon with an air-to-air missile, then the missile would have targeted the heat from an engine, which would have been destroyed quite some distance from the impact crater. The fact that both engines were attached to the aircraft until impact makes a missile shot very unlikely. (The engines sheared off from the wings upon impact, and bounced across the countryside for almost a mile, because they were running at full throttle until the fuel ran out.)

Captain Brice stated that they never found “ parts to that airplane” away from the crater. The statement implies that there was no aircraft debris away from the impact point. But, news reports published at the time (and preserved by other Internet researchers, against the destruction of articles — which has already occurred) show that there were two debris fields away from the impact point. One field was 2.5 miles away; the other was eight miles away. I find it hard to believe that the senior crash investigator from the airline would not have known about these debris fields — especially given their unusual nature, and the fact that they were well-publicized in the Shanksville area (and beyond, thanks to the Internet). In fact, news accounts at the time stated that FBI agents were out tagging corn stalks in a farm field to show where debris pieces had landed. The key to the statement, and to the mystery of the crash, is that not all items of debris are “parts to that airplane”. I’d like to think that this twist of words was not deliberate, although it does seem to parallel President Bill Clinton’s use of the phrase “that woman” in denying sex with Monica Lewinsky. (To this day, there are people that think Clinton never lied, and that the “right-wing media” set him up.)

Both of the debris fields were small (by jet crash standards), and contain little that would point to a specific problem with the aircraft. In fact, what is significant about both debris fields is that they were made up primarily of things that were not structural parts of the aircraft. That, in turn, raises the question of how those things got outside the aircraft in the first place. If there was no problem with the structure of the airliner prior to the crash, then how did various things end up on the ground so far from the impact point? And, if there was a problem with the airliner, then why were there so few parts of the aircraft among the items of debris? The only answer that is consistent with the evidence is that the problem that produced the debris was very limited in scope. A catastrophic event (whether a missile, an onboard bomb, or a “spontaneous fuel tank explosion”) would have produced much more debris. But, some event caused things (and people) that were inside the aircraft to suddenly go outside the aircraft while it was still flying at altitude.

If there had been a bomb aboard, it would likely have caused more damage to the aircraft. But, carrying a bomb aboard would have been counter to the terrorists’ overall plans to crash airliners into specific targets on the ground, because the bomb might be discovered during security screening of the passengers and baggage. And, if a bomb had damaged the airliner, there would have been more structural debris far away from the impact point. Furthermore, a bomb-damaged aircraft would likely have exhibited some signs to the few eyewitnesses on the ground (e.g.: a gaping hole, flame, smoke, falling debris). None of those things were reported. Instead, news reports of aircraft debris indicate that there were only a few tiny shards of metal. All the other debris consisted of things from inside the aircraft — including human body parts.

the evidence doesn’t lie

This debris scenario is consistent with what would happen if the airliner were hit with short bursts from the 20-mm cannon of a military interceptor. The history of military aviation is full of stories of aircraft that were hit by the gun(s) of a pursing aircraft, but survived. (At my last base, from 1989 to 1991, I flew in helicopters that had bullethole patches from the Vietnam War.) The average modern dogfight lasts about a minute, and often involves more than one exchange of weapon fire. At 500 miles per hour, it takes an airliner about 40 seconds to travel about six miles. The two debris fields were about six miles apart. Forty seconds would be enough time for an F-15 to fire a precision shot (most likely from a steep angle above) into the cockpit of Flight 93, maneuver under the airliner, climb back above it again, line up another shot, and fire again. (Or, alternatively, for the second interceptor — they usually fly in pairs — to finish the job that the first one started.)

Star shows Indian Lake Marina, where body parts fell to earth.

Not only the distance between the debris fields, but the types of debris, are consistent with the above scenario. The first debris field, near New Baltimore (discovered when a toddler saw a piece of paper in his yard), contains mostly pieces of paper. The second debris field, near the Indian Lake Marina, is similar, but includes tiny shards of metal and human body parts. At the second debris field, agents removed a garbage bag full of debris. If the aircraft had suffered structural damage from a bomb, then the amount of debris would have been many times larger. For example, the bomb that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 produced a continuous stream of debris that stretched for several miles across the Scottish countryside. And, the pieces got larger closer to the impact point.

This last point is very significant, because what little debris there was did get larger closer to the impact point. But, the debris was not continuous. This suggests that two different events produced two separate debris fields. That would not be consistent with a bomb, nor with a “normal” structural failure. But, it would be entirely consistent with the airliner having been hit with two separate bursts of cannon fire. And, eyewitnesses reported that the aircraft only began its final, steep dive shortly before impact. Did the first burst hit near the cockpit, and the second burst inside the cockpit?

The first debris field contained mostly paper, including checks. Prior to “9-11”, the main method of transporting US Mail by air was to put it into secure containers inside the cargo holds of commercial airliners. Shortly after “9-11”, this procedure suddenly changed. (Air mail is now carried mostly by specific air-cargo carriers. Passenger airlines are excluded from carrying mail. That is part of the “hidden cost” to the airline industry from the “9-11” attacks.) And, coincidentally, the Federal government introduced the new “Check 21” laws, which require checks to be processed differently, and to be backed up with electronic images. The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reported at the time that “a charred payroll check made out to Antonio B. Costa of San Jose, Calif.,” was among the New Baltimore debris. But, Mr. Costa was not aboard Flight 93. Apparently, his check, along with other valuable papers, was inside a mail container aboard Flight 93. When mail containers are loaded aboard commercial aircraft, they are often loaded last, so that they can be unloaded first and kept moving. That procedure places such containers in the front of the cargo hold — beneath the cockpit.

The larger debris field near Indian Lake Marina also contained pieces of mail, including a brokerage statement for a $2-million stock account. The difference is that adults at the scene heard a noise, looked up, and saw “confetti raining down all over the lake”. If that “confetti” had come from the impact crater, then it would have taken more than a few seconds to get there. And, initially, even the on-scene investigators said that it would’ve been impossible for the debris to have come from the impact point, because there is a hill in between. Thus, pieces of debris would have had to survive a full-speed impact, and then the flames of a burning jetliner, float upward (without burning in the super-heated air), gain enough altitude to get over the hill, and then float 2.5 miles away (despite the downdraft created by the sudden cooling of the air when it gets away from the flames). But, under that same government-sponsored story, pieces of metal and human body parts would have to float through the air at the same rate as those pieces of paper. After all, the debris fell to earth all together in a mixed cloud. The only way for that to happen is for it to all fall (more of less) straight down. (In freefall, a spread-stable skydiver can take a bite of an apple without touching it, because its shape allows it to cut through the air at the same speed. I know, because I was on a helicopter freefall jump load when Jamie Shoemaker and “Terminal Tom” Nicholson shared an apple back and forth in that fashion.) In order for the debris to fall straight down, something had to create the debris stream while the airliner was in flight. Metal and paper can fall straight down from the sky together, but they cannot arc over a hill and back down together. It defies the laws of physics.

Eyewitnesses reported that the debris field also contained “small chunks of melted plastic”. For the plastic to melt, something had to produce heat. But, if the chunks had fallen from the airliner in flight, then what caused the plastic to melt? The higher the altitude, the colder the air. So, either the plastic encountered heat while inside the airliner in flight; or, we must believe that the plastic survived the burning crash crater and floated over the hill — along with the metal and paper. Physics requires that, if the four substances (metal, plastic, paper, and body parts) were ejected from the crater at the same time, then they would sort themselves out according to weight as they arced through the air. That did not happen. All the debris came down together in a mixed cloud. So, what heat source could have melted plastic in flight, but did not produce flames that were visible from the ground during the airliner’s final dive? How about a hot 20-mm projectile cutting through the cockpit? And, since a certain portion of those shells are coated with an incendiary substance (to create “tracer” rounds), that would explain how some pieces could be misshapen from heat, yet still recognizable as having come from inside the airliner. (To create an experiment that approximates this effect, ask a local junkyard operator if he will let you blast a car’s interior with a few shotgun slugs. Take a look at the pieces that fly off. The side touched by the hot slug will show signs of melting.)

The difference between the types of debris found in New Baltimore and Indian Lake suggests that the second burst of cannon fire did more damage; and, that it hit the cockpit. If the cannon fire had hit anywhere else along the fuselage, then part of the aircraft would have broken off during impact, due to structural weakness where the cannon shells cut the skin (and frame, depending on where they hit) of the aircraft. But, as both Captain Brice and civilian eyewitnesses confirmed, the bulk of the airliner wreckage was contained inside the initial impact crater. This suggests that Flight 93 struck the ground vertically at full speed. Had a missile hit it, whatever was left of the airliner would likely have struck the ground at an odd angle. If the crash had been caused only by a struggle inside the cockpit, then the aircraft would likely have slid into the ground at a less severe angle — thus spewing debris in a Y-pattern out in front of the impact point. The government-sponsored story indicates that a terrorist dove the plane into the ground. But, that does not account for the inverted attitude of the aircraft at impact. And, if the cockpit was breached by four to six strong men (one of them a Judo champion), then who thinks the terrorist was still at the controls?

Space limitations require that I end this segment here. But, we are not done examining the story that the two debris fields tell us. And, as I said at the beginning of this column, the results surprised even me. My original goal was to tell this “four corners examination” in four parts. But, we will continue examining the debris field in Part 5 of “Flight 93 Was Shot Down”.

Part 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Tom Kovach