NOTES FROM THE EDITOR'S CUFF
By Reed Irvine

WHAT ARE THEY HIDING ABOUT FLIGHT 93? THAT WAS THE HEADLINE ON A COLUMN that I wrote at the end of last year. We had recently received a letter from the FBI rejecting our request for a transcript of the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) of United Flight 93, the hijacked Boeing 757 that crashed in Pennsylvania on Sept. 11. The FBI's response to our FOIA request was that the transcript is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act because "it could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings." I can't for the life of me figure out what kind of enforcement proceedings release of the CVR transcript could possibly hamper. The hijackers are all dead. Zacarias Moussaoui, who appears to have been designated as a member of the hijack team, didn't make it because officials at the flight school in Minnesota where he was trying to learn how to steer a 747 were suspicious of that odd request and called the FBI. He was detained on an immigration charge by the INS and missed his flight. He is going to be tried in Virginia on conspiracy charges, but I can't see that the CVR transcript would play any role in that trial.

THERE ARE THREE POSSIBLE SCENARIOS THAT WOULD EXPLAIN WHAT CAUSED FLIGHT 93 to dive into an abandoned strip mine near Shanksville, Pa. The one favored by the government seems to be that several male passengers tried to overpower the hijackers and take control of the plane, but it crashed as they struggled in the cockpit. This is based on reports of what was said in cell-phone conversations, but those calls all stopped about eight minutes before the plane crashed. If the passengers succeeded in getting into the cockpit, there should be evidence of the struggle on the CVR. If that is what happened, why won't the FBI release the transcript that would prove it?

FBI SPOKESMAN JOHN COLLINGWOOD EXPLAINED THEIR REFUSAL TO RELEASE THE transcript to those who had relatives on the plane, saying, "While we empathize with the grieving families, we do not believe that the horror captured on the cockpit voice recording will console them in any way." If the tape shows that the actions taken by the passengers caused the crash, that would at least give their families the satisfaction of knowing they behaved heroically, preventing the hijackers from killing anyone except those aboard. The FBI spokesman said that while the FBI would not accede to the families' request for the tape, "we hope that they will take comfort in knowing that all of America embraces the passengers and flight crew of Flight 93 as heroes." That's what they want us to believe and what we would like to believe, but apparently they didn't find proof of it on the CVR tape. The spokesman did not say that the tape shows the passengers and flight crew were heroes; it says all America considers them heroes and leaves it at that.

A SECOND SCENARIO IS BASED ON A CELL-PHONE CONVERSATION IN WHICH A PASSENGER said that one of the hijackers claimed to have a bomb, which he threatened to detonate. The apprehension of shoe-bomber Richard C. Reid makes this more plausible than it sounded at first. If Reid's few ounces of plastic explosive, now identified as triacetone triperoxide (TATP), could have done as much damage as some reports have suggested, it is quite possible that the hijackers of Flight 93 could have concealed enough on their persons to blow a hole in the side of the plane if they decided that was necessary to quell any effort by the crew and passengers to regain control of the cockpit. This would explain two things: (1) a passenger's phone call to Westmoreland County's 911 number reporting an explosion on the plane, and (2) papers and other light items from the plane being found strewn over several miles. The explosion and sudden decompression would probably kill some of the passengers and perhaps make it harder for the inexperienced hijackers to control the plane, resulting in the crash.

THE THIRD SCENARIO IS THAT THE AIRLINER WAS SHOT DOWN BY AN F-16 FIGHTER plane, an action authorized by President Bush. Information supporting this scenario can be found on www.flight93crash.com. An article from the Philadelphia Daily News of November 15 reported that a number of people near the area where the plane crashed believe that it was shot down. One of them, Laura Temyer, was surprised when she heard a plane because she understood that all flights had been grounded. She told the Daily News, "I heard like a boom and the engine sounded funny. I heard two more booms, and then I did not hear anything." The mayor of Shanksville said that F-16 fighters were very, very close, and that two men he knew claimed they had heard a missile. The FBI admitted that a 1000 lb. piece of one of the engines was found west of the crash site. [The airliner was on a southeast course.] That would be consistent with a heat-seeking missile from an F-16 striking the engine, and it disproves the claim of some eyewitnesses who said the plane was intact when it burrowed deeply into the soft soil of the abandoned strip mine.

IT APPEARS THAT WHAT THE GOVERNMENT WANTS US TO BELIEVE CAUSED THE CRASHES of both United Flight 93 and American Flight 587 has generated a lot of suspicion. Here's an example that was e-mailed to me: "Someone that I trust told me the following (my friend is an average guy no government connections but always has accurate info): 'This person I work with has a sister who works at the FAA and she said they know for sure that this plane [Flight 93] was shot down and the plane that crashed in Rockaway, NY [Flight 587] was terrorism.' Sounds like a bad urban legend, but you never know." A number of eyewitnesses of the crash of Flight 587 reported seeing an explosion and fire preceding the crash. Six citizens have requested to testify at the first NTSB public hearing on Flight 587. Tom Lynch, the organizer of this group, says they are taking this action "because the NTSB is not publicly acknowledging the many eyewitness accounts [up to 25} of the in-flight fire or explosion." Unfortunately, Ms. Marion Blakey, the chairman of the NTSB, declared the crash to be an accident before the investigation had even begun and statements from eyewitnesses collected. The TWA 800 precedent, which she has not repudiated, suggests that little if any importance will be attached to eyewitness statements that conflict with her hastily reached conclusion. Mr. Lynch says, "If the NTSB had maintained objectivity they would not have said the crash was being treated as an accident when there seems to be sufficient reason to at least suspect foul play." The NTSB has responded to that saying that so far their investigation has found no physical evidence of any explosive.

HOWARD MANN, A RETIRED TWA PILOT AND FLIGHT ENGINEER WHO HAS CONTRIBUTED a lot to the private investigation of the TWA 800 crash, tells me that what the Flight 587 eyewitnesses thought was an explosion was probably an engine stall, which is like a backfire except that it is a violent event. With fire coming out of both the front and rear of the engine it could easily be mistaken for an explosion. On the basis of reports that the plane appeared to be "wallowing," Capt. Mann believes that it got into a "Dutch roll." That is a situation in which turbulence or an engine stall causes the plane to yaw to the left or right and then does just the opposite when the pilot tries to straighten it out. He says this can be a serious problem and could cause a crash. There may be evidence in the black boxes, the CVR and the FDR, that would confirm or disprove this. I discussed it with a member of the NTSB staff who is following the investigation. He didn't rule it out. But until they come clean about the TWA 800 crash, I'm going to find it hard to trust them to tell the truth about any others.

NOTHING SEEMS TO SHAKE THE FAITH OF THE ESTABLISHMENT MEDIA REPORTERS WHO cover plane crashes in what the government tells them. I had a long phone conversation with one of them, Matthew Wald, who reports for the New York Times. Since none of the big media had picked up the story about the NTSB secretly destroying the most important parts of the forensic evidence in the TWA 800 case—all the wreckage at the Calverton hangar except the stripped-down mock-up of the fuselage and one engine—I decided to see if Mr. Wald would have any interest in it. Soon after I learned about this highly questionable action, I gave the story to Don Phillips of the Washington Post. Phillips expressed interest in it, but he did no story, and I haven't been able to reach him to find out why. I chose him because he had written a story last year about the plans to transfer the TWA 800 wreckage to a building being erected near the Dulles Airport in Virginia by George Washington University. The NTSB was to use it to teach students how to find out the cause of crashes, or perhaps how to cover-up the cause of crashes when the government doesn't want the truth to be known.

I DIDN'T THINK THAT MATT WALD WOULD EMBRACE THE STORY WITH ANY ENTHUSIASM. He bought the official line five years ago, and it would be embarrassing to report a story now that casts doubt on it. I thought that his interest might be piqued by the fact that PK Metals of Long Island had to promise to keep it secret to get the contract to recycle the wreckage. Wald couldn't explain that, but he rejected the idea that the NTSB demanded secrecy because it was destroying evidence that could prove that the official finding was wrong. If the Times reported that, the cover-up could unravel. I believe that the transcript of the tape of our conversation will show that Matt Wald has no desire to touch a story that might have that effect.