Hijacker Crashed Flight 93 on 9/11

AP via Yahoo! ^ | 8/7/03 | TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer

[dead]

WASHINGTON - U.S. investigators now believe that a hijacker in the cockpit aboard United Airlines Flight 93 instructed terrorist-pilot Ziad Jarrah to crash the jetliner into a Pennsylvania field because of a passenger uprising in the cabin.

This theory, based on the government's analysis of cockpit recordings, discounts the popular perception of insurgent passengers grappling with terrorists to seize the plane's controls.

The government's findings — laid out deep within the report on the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that was sent to Congress last month — aim to resolve one of the enduring mysteries of the deadliest terror attacks in U.S. history: What happened in the final minutes aboard Flight 93?

The FBI strenuously maintains that its analysis does not diminish the heroism of passengers who — with the words "Let's roll" — apparently rushed down the airliner's narrow aisle to try to overtake the hijackers.

President Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft have regularly praised the courage of those aboard Flight 93, some of whom told family members by telephone they were planning to storm the cockpit.

"While no one will ever know exactly what transpired in the final minutes of Flight 93, every shred of evidence indicates this plane crashed because of the heroic actions of the passengers," FBI spokeswoman Susan Whitson said Thursday.

Thirty-three passengers, seven crew members and the four hijackers died.

Citing transcripts of the still-secret cockpit recordings, FBI Director Robert Mueller told congressional investigators in a closed briefing last year that, minutes before Flight 93 hit the ground, one of the hijackers "advised Jarrah to crash the plane and end the passengers' attempt to retake the airplane."

Jarrah is thought to have been the terrorist-pilot because he was the only of the four hijackers aboard known to have a pilot's license.

Mueller's description was disclosed in a brief passage far into the 858-page report to Congress. Previous statements by FBI and other government officials have been ambiguous about what occurred in the cockpit.

Mueller's explanation was based on the FBI's efforts to decipher the cacophonous sounds on the cockpit recorder and produce a comprehensive transcript, said one official, speaking only on condition of anonymity.

The FBI is convinced it may never know for certain what transpired in those final moments, but Mueller represented the information as the FBI's leading theory, this official said.

The same cockpit recording was played privately in April 2002 for family members of victims aboard Flight 93, and the FBI also provided them with its best effort at producing an understandable transcript.

Some family members indicated afterward they were led to believe that passengers used a food cart as a shield and successfully broke into the cockpit.

The FBI has been loath to publicly put forward a contradictory theory out of sensitivity to the families and because of uncertainty about what happened.

People who have heard the recording describe it as nearly indecipherable, containing static noises, cockpit alarms and wind interspersed with cries in English and Arabic. Near the end of the tape, sounds can be heard of breaking glass and crashing dishes — lending credence to the theory that passengers used the food cart to rush the jetliner's narrow aisle.

Separately, the data recorder showed the plane's wings rocking violently as the jet flew too low and too fast for safe flight.

Intelligence officials believe the likely target for Flight 93 was the White House, based on information from Abu Zubaydah, a senior al-Qaida terrorist leader in U.S. custody who is believed to have played a key role in organizing the Sept. 11 attacks.

Prosecutors have sought a U.S. judge's permission to play recordings from Flight 93 during the terrorism trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the only defendant in a U.S. case prosecutors have directly tied to the attacks. Moussaoui is accused of conspiring with the hijackers.

The government has said it can link Moussaoui to Jarrah, using a telephone number found on a business card recovered at the Shanksville, Pa., crash site. Prosecutors believe the card belonged to Jarrah and that Moussaoui had called the same number.

Moussaoui has acknowledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida but says he was not involved in the attacks.

___

[HitmanLV]

Depends - which one of the Apollo missions?

[Pukka Puck]

The shoe bomber had a strap on bomb?

[Pukka Puck]

"sick conspirancy theory jerks be damned!"

Quite right!

[HitmanLV]

Based on phone calls from the plane it is clear the passengers fought the hijackers. But it also looks like the outcome was "simplified" for public consumption.

Exactly - I don't doubt they resisted, but they never made it to the cockpit. Too cinematic. It never rang true to me.

[Poohbah]

People on FR love to prove major media are wrong. Got any proof in this case?

Statement of an ex-war-buddy in Somerset County. "Wreckage" found eight miles away was paper and was DOWNWIND of the crash site. The heavier stuff was clustered in the immediate area of impact, consonant with a CFIT event.

There are both preceding and subsequent AQ uses of small bombs on passenger planes.

True, but the evidence doesn't support it in this case.

It is impossible for 6x7' pieces of wing, body parts, etc. to bounce 8 miles

They didn't.

[Asclepius]

... The passengers did try to overtake the hijackers ...

Precisely. Hence, no myth. I don't recall anyone ever claiming that the cockpit was breached by the struggling passengers etc.

[HitmanLV]

They failed to make it to the cockpit and subdue the pilot. I thought that then, and I think so now. This story corroborates it.

[Arkinsaw]

No, not at all. I just think that there was some resistance on the plane, but it never got to the cockpit. The original story did smack of myth from the get-go. That they would put this to rest 2 years later isn't surprising. Thr truth is, sadly, that the americans on that plane were not effective in overtaking the controls of the plane.

Why did the plane crash in the field in Pennsylvania? Was that the terrorists target? Coincidence?

[Pukka Puck]

You are a great fool. Whether they overtook the cockpit or were in the process of overtaking the cockpit matters not a whit as to the substance of the story. It certainly was not shot down as you and some other sick conspiracy jerks believe.

[Poohbah]

Terrorists didn't want to give the passengers the satisfaction of winning.

[HitmanLV]

No, the story that day (and days following) was that the plane went down in the field because of the battle in the cockpit. Made for a nice story. That's all it was.

[TomB]

They failed to make it to the cockpit and subdue the pilot. I thought that then, and I think so now. This story corroborates it.

When was it conclusively stated that that was the case? It was always my understanding that they may have reached the door of the cocpit, but may not have gotten in. It looks like you and the AP are trying to rebut a conclusion that wasn't made.

Do you believe, however, that their actions in some way precipitated the crash?

[HitmanLV]

I don't know what the target was, but it certainly wasn't the Penn field. It;s likely they aborted the mission, or were shot down. Certainly one of the two.

But our heroes never made it to the cockpit and fought valiantly for truth, justice, and the american way. Sorry, I never bought that.

[Pukka Puck]

"Actually a bomb or shoot-down are absolutely necessary to explain the way the debris was distributed."

Nonsense. The plane hit the ground at a very high rate of speed. The article notes that the "data recorder showed the plane's wings rocking violently" so that could have shook off debris prior to the crash.

[Arkinsaw]

Terrorists didn't want to give the passengers the satisfaction of winning.

But if they crashed into field in Pennsylvania rather than into the White House as planned then the passengers did win.

The only way you can say that they did not win is if you think the passengers motivations were simply to save their own skins. Based on the phone conversations I don't believe that this was their primary motivation.

[HitmanLV]

It does matter. The story of the battle in the cockpit, and the valiant american heroes, is a myth. They never got that far. The bad guys either aborted the mission or were shot down.

Why would beliveing that the plane was shot down make someone a jerk?

[tsmith130]

Yes, they hate American fields of grass. Ticks them off big time; all that green. It's called a Field Jihad. </sarcasm

[Pukka Puck]

"So, if the passengers sat in their seats passively the plane would have crashed in the White House or the Capitol Building.

Instead, the passengers did rise up and the plane did not crash in DC."

Seems simple and clear enough to me. Why cannot everyone see this obvious fact?

[DBrow]

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=40198&SectionID=25&SubSectionID=354&S=1

"Controllers have also learned that an F-16 fighter closely pursued hijacked
United Airlines Flight 93 until it crashed in southwestern Pennsylvania, the
employee said.

Although controllers don't have complete details of the Air Force's chase
of the Boeing 757, they have learned the F-16 made 360-degree turns to
remain close to the commercial jet, the employee said.

"He must've seen the whole thing," the employee said of the F-16 pilot's
view of Flight 93's crash."
................................
The investigators later said, No Chase Plane. No further mention of a chase plane, other than denials.

There are so many contradictory snips of data that I doubt we will know details for sure, for some time.

Having said that, my opinion is that the passengers tried to stop a terror attack, knowing in full what they were doing, and acting in a selfless manner in the face of great fear. That's heroism.

If the highjackers chose a slightly earlier suicide than what they planned, the passengers succeeded. Sure, they did not take the yoke and land at the next general aviation field with the hijackers trussed up in seat belts, but I don't think that makes the effort a failure.

The article is a sneaky way of hinting that BUSH LIED. He did not, of course, but by pointing out theat the POTUS praised the passengers, and now the "real truth" is out that the passengers did not actually succeed, the hint is made that Bush was (once again) less than accurate. Same deal with Jessica Lynch- sow the seeds of doubt.

Pick a propaganda theme and never let up, just keep repeating it in different ways, and you can "get your message out". Public relations experts from Goebbels to Bernays have advised that. Know any political parties that are complaining that they can't get their message out?

[Arkinsaw]

But our heroes never made it to the cockpit and fought valiantly for truth, justice, and the american way. Sorry, I never bought that.

Phone conversations and flight recorders notwithstanding eh?