Not to jump into the frey but I'm going to post some stuff from another site I subscribe to....
Conspiracy chasers would want the public to believe that flight 93 was shot down by F-16s. Here's some food for thought....
The F-16 is a multi role fighter used for air-to-air combat and ground support. Most bases that operate this aircraft train for the multi role mission and prepare for overseas deployment.
The F-15 is the USAF primary air-to-air fighter and the backbone of air defense of the Continental US. During the cold war years, F-15s normally did the intercepting of snooping Russian aircraft. Their role is basically the same.
MY POINT - F-16s will normally not be on alert for interception or scramble!
911 Research does do a good point of showing this but fails to mention F-16s are normally not under the control of NORAD or on air defense alert, that job is for the F-15....
9-11 Research: Air Defense
Good job but some errors.
From the site - "At 10:01 AM the FAA ordered the 180th Fighter Wing out of Swanton, Ohio, to scramble F-16 fighters." The FAA has no authority to "order" fighters to scramble - that lies with the USAF (DUH!)
This unit was the only F-16 unit close enough to perform an intercept over Pennsylvania in the shown time frame although F-16s as far away as Andrews and Michigan were now being called. One controller from New Hampshire reports another F-16 was in the area as well. Flight 93 crashed at 10:06, that gave the fighters at from the 180th FW (the closest ones) 5 1/2 minutes to scramble, get to altitude, pick up the target and shoot down flight 93 like some alleged.
Let's see, the F-16s top speed is 1,321 mph. From the base to the crash point of flight 93 is 233 miles. That would of meant the aircraft had to take off and immediately go to full after-burner and reach the target in 5 minutes - If the F-16 went full afterburner climbed up to altitude and shoot down flight 93, it would of also meant that the aircraft was performing within the lower part of it's combat radius which is about 330 miles. That means the aircraft might would not make it back to Toledo.
The closest place to land would of been Pittsburgh, but no conspiracy chasers jump on this...
It would of also meant that if the intercept would of happened under the noses of Pittsburgh International Airport and other ATC Centers - if a shoot down would of occurred, someone would of heard it...
The final tally - every East Coast ATC center is attempting to talk to flight 93 - several F-15s and F-16 in the air. No one admits to a shoot down order although the first two F-15 pilots on scene were told that flight 93 was shot down (I even remember that being reported in the chaos and confusion of the day) and no ground crews who service these aircraft (who happen to be mainly non-career enlisted personnel) admit to any weapons being deployed after all of this. - THIS IS THE BIGGEST HOLE OF ALL WITH REGARDS TO FLIGHT 93! - Someone explain this to me!!!!!
4,000 Jews, 1 Lie
Tracking an Internet hoax.
By Bryan Curtis
Posted Friday, Oct. 5, 2001, at 8:30 PM ET
[Addendum, Oct. 7, 4 p.m. ET: Osama Bin Laden essentially claimed credit for the Sept. 11 attacks in a statement recorded before Sunday's strikes on Afghanistan. "America was hit by God in one of its softest spots," he said. "If it continues with this policy [against Iraq and the PLO], the sons of Islam will not stop their struggle."]
It is an article of faith in many Muslim countries that Israel was behind the attack on the World Trade Center, with many citing as their evidence a "news report" that 4,000 Israelis called in sick from their jobs at the World Trade Center on Sept. 11. The allegation has now appeared on scores of Web sites and bulletin boards, has been reproduced in e-mails too numerous to count, and has run as fact in newspapers and news broadcasts in the Middle East. Where did this charge originate, and what path did it take around the world?
First, a question begs: Where did the precise figure of 4,000 Israelis come from? According to the Anti-Defamation League's Web site, on Sept. 11, the Israeli Embassy released a statement expressing concern about the 4,000 Israeli nationals living in New York City—few of whom actually worked in the World Trade Center. At press time, the embassy couldn't confirm this statement.
According to Nexis and the Google search engine, the first mention of Israeli involvement in the attacks came in a Sept. 17 report on Lebanon's Al-Manar Television. The Los Angeles Times reports that the terrorist group Hezbollah has free access to Al-Manar's airwaves, and the station's Web site claims that the station exists to "stage an effective psychological warfare with the Zionist enemy."
The next day at 6:26 a.m., the American Web site Information Times published an article headlined "4,000 Jews Did Not Go To Work At WTC On Sept. 11," and credited it to an "AL-MANAR Television Special Investigative Report." This was not the first time that Information Times had pointed the finger at Israel. The day after the attacks, it warned in an article that the "terrorist government of Israel … cannot be ruled out" as a suspect. Information Times purports to be edited by Syed Adeeb from the eighth floor of the National Press Club at 549 15th St. NW, Washington, DC, 20045. The Press Club says it has no such tenant and repeated messages sent to the e-mail address for Syed Abeed listed on the site bounce back as undeliverable. Directory assistance for Washington, D.C., has no listing for Information Times.
The "4,000 Jews" page is easily forwarded as e-mail, and this may explain the message's rapid dissemination.
The Information Times article makes three charges:
1) Citing the Jordanian newspaper Al-Watan, it alleges that "Israelis remained absent [on Sept. 11] based on hints from the Israeli General Security Apparatus, the Shabak." No media source except Al-Manar claims to have actually seen the editorial in Al-Watan, which the Jordanian Embassy's information bureau describes as an obscure newspaper with a low circulation. Al-Watan's source? Unnamed "Arab diplomatic sources." (A few newspapers called Al-Watan have Web sites—click here, here, and here to visit them—though none seem to be based in Jordan.)
2) Citing the Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot, it alleges that Israeli secret police prevented Prime Minister Ariel Sharon from traveling to New York City on Sept. 11.
3) Citing the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, it alleges that the FBI arrested five Israelis who were caught filming the WTC's smoking rubble from their office building roof. (They were being held on the charge of "puzzling behavior.")
No other media outlet that can be searched through Nexis or Google has confirmed the Information Times claims about Sharon and the five Israelis.
Within days, the story appeared in newspapers around the world. A remarkably similar version appeared under the byline of Irina Malenko in Russia's Pravda on Sept. 21. Pravda removed the article from its Web site a few hours after posting, calling it a "great and foolish mistake," but it can still be accessed here. On Sept. 21, the Chicago Tribune reported that a Pakistani paper, which it did not name, had published a similar account. In his Sept. 23 Slate "Dispatch" from Islamabad, Peter Maass reported that a local pro-Taliban politician repeated the 4,000 Jews claim at an anti-U.S. rally. On Sept. 26, Pakistan's Business Recorder printed the story about 4,000 Jews in language almost identical to the original Al-Manar article as a letter to the editor under the name "Hakeem." The same day, the New York Times reported that the allegation had appeared in a newsletter published by an Islamic charity and in lesson plans prepared by Egyptian middle-school teachers. On Oct. 4, the Chicago Tribune spotted the allegation in a Saudi paper, which it did not name. In the Oct. 8 issue of Time, Tim McGirk reported from Pakistan that the story had swept through the country's mosques and Urdu newspapers.
On Sept. 28, USA Today repeated the claim in the context that "Muslims the world over" had tried to pin the attack on Israel. USA Today did not explain the origin of the charge. The Village Voice did the same on Oct. 2. The hoax-debunking site Snopes.com assailed the story, as well. With the Web as a weapon, a lie spreads quickly and easily. With the Web as a corrective tool, the same lie becomes much easier to bat away.
To those in that club. 
Linear Mode
