[30:35] (CC) "It is claimed it was secretly shot down by the US Air Force. Reports of debris being found miles away from the crash site here it proves, it is argued, the Boeing started to disintegrate in mid air after being hit by a missile."
The fact is the USAF or the National Guard or the Naval fighter squadrons that were available, should have shot Flight 93 down. That is their job. To protect the Homeland.
That four hijacked airliners flew around for almost 2 hours without hindrance from the most sophisticated air defence system on this planet is unbelievable. It is the "unbelievable" that makes honest souls question.
The main issues of concern are:
1) US intelligence services collusion with the alleged terrorists.
2) The inconceivable failure of the US air defence system.
3) The fact that the laws of physics are incompatible with the official theory.
4) The failure of all the official "investigations" to address these key issues.
Issues that the BBC also avoids assiduously.
Instead the coverage of flight 93 diverts attention from these key concerns. It introduces red herrings and weaves a confusing web of contradictions and false trails.
Alex Jones is allowed to state the empirical evidence relating to the alleged end of Flight 93:
[31:00] Alex Jones "When planes crash into the ground they never leave more than a mile long debris field and you see the luggage and the engines ... the FEDs are on record reporting there was an 8 plus mile debris field with F93."
Check the evidence, detailed deconstruction of the two minute dis-information clip presented by the BBC compared to public source records. [More]
The BBC does not check any evidence of the debris field. They instead show Wally Miller the coroner who is on record as saying:-
[34:53] Dylan Avery Quoting Miller,
"I stopped being coroner after 20 minutes because there were no bodies there"
[35:00] Miller: "I said I stopped being a coroner after 20 minutes because it was perfectly clear what the cause and manner of death was going to be. It was a plane crash but yet it was a homicide because the terrorists hijacked the plane and killed the people so the terrorists committed suicide."
That's not how a coroner investigates any case of violent death.
[35:18] Miller: "It was a mis-quote. The point I was trying to make was after that it more or less became a large funeral service."
[35:44] Avery quoting Miller, "It seemed as if the plane had let its passengers off beforehand".
[35:50] Guy Smith (BBC producer) "It was a simile - it looked as if that had happened" quoting Miller again "it looked as if someone had taken a scrap truck, dug a ditch and dumped trash in it". (GS) "But he didn't mean that literally. He was saying that as a simile."
[36:13] Miller "There's a fringe of people out there that want to try to make something out of it that isn't."
The BBC substituting amateur psychology for serious investigative journalism - yet again.
[36:44] (CC) "Personal items recovered: hijackers passport and a bandanna which may have been worn by one of the hijackers."
In the words of Dylan Avery
WHO WRITES THIS STUFF?
"may have been worn by hijacker" advises the BBC
This was the second miraculous passport to be recovered and how can the line "bandanna which may have been worn by one of the hijackers" have anything to do with a serious and impartial inquiry?
Can the BBC seriously claim to be separating “fact from fiction" when it relies on such fatuous evidence as a bandanna (which could have been anyone’s assuming it survived the fire ball) - evidence which would not be admissible in court?
A passport (which miraculously survived, but could have been planted) hardly makes the evidence stronger. Is the population of the Western World really prepared to accept this as proof that the US government’s theory is correct?
Is this really proof that the US government’s explanation is correct?
The BBC spun this diversionary yarn about F93 for over SEVEN minutes whereas it covered the key issue of the collapse of the Twin Towers for only TWO minutes.
[36:52] (CC) "But in the face of this some still question the official account. They believe that Flight 93 landed somewhere else entirely and the passengers were abducted."
CLEVELAND AIRPORT
[37:34] Dylan Avery "At 11:43 on September 11th WCPO, a local radio station, reported that two (suspect) planes had landed at Cleveland Hopkins Airport ... United Airlines identified one of the planes as Flight 93."
Dylan Avery is used to introduce the obscure debate about evidence on the public record that two planes suspected of being hijacked landed at Cleveland Airport.
Rather than investigate the evidence the BBC spins a three minute red herring proving that Delta 89 landed at Cleveland when nobody is doubting the fact. Delta 89 landing at Cleveland is half of the evidence that investigators present to indicate that two suspect planes were involved. One, Delta 89, landed at 10:10 with passengers released at 12:30 whereas the second plane Flight 93 or Flight X, landed at 10:45 with passengers released at 11:15.
[37:47] (CC) "It's true that a passenger jet was diverted to Cleveland."
Like so many things, the BBC omits mention of the second plane - why?
"Omission is the greatest form of lie"
George Orwell
Passenger's stories, eye witness accounts and broadcast and printed media showed that F89 with 69 passengers and 9 crew was to taken a location close to the FAA HQ. (IX Centre) on the south side of the airport. Flight 93 or Flight X, with 200 passengers, was taken to the NASA building at the west end of the airport.
The events at Cleveland Airport are important but peripheral to the main story of the attack on America yet the BBC chooses to invest THREE minutes "proving" the unquestioned fact that Delta 89 landed at Cleveland.
They used this cameo to repeat the refrain of stories that "echo around chat rooms and web sites" getting "distorted". The BBC builds on the theme running through the programme that those that question government statements are "flawed people" with motives ulterior to that of discovering the truth. [More]
Whatever the truth about Cleveland, the issue for citizens world-wide, is the need for a non-manipulative, impartial and accurate media.
