Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hijacker Crashed Flight 93 on 9/11
AP via Yahoo! ^ | 8/7/03 | TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer

Posted on 08/07/2003 4:22:34 PM PDT by dead

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 381-399 next last
To: sinkspur
In addition, that would be the secret too big to keep.

Not only that, we KNOW there is no secret. The government has openly admitted all along that the order had been given to shoot the plane down. The fighter jets just didn't get there until a few minutes after the plane went down itself.

Of course, there are a few who manage to spin a conspiracy theory out of this anyway, alleging that there's some wacko reason why the government will admit to giving the order yet not admit to "actually having it carried out." They just never get around to giving an explanation for such an argument that makes even the slightest sense. (Usually it's the standard hoary line that only worked up until 9/10: "The public wouldn't be able to handle the truth.")

In the end, interestingly enough, it's rather like the hair-splitting article that launched this thread. All that matters is that the government intended to take that plane down and has let the public know it. Once that's been established, what's the difference whether it went down due to an Air Force missile, a revolt by the passengers, or the actions of the hijackers themselves?

301 posted on 08/07/2003 11:25:55 PM PDT by Timesink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Afronaut
What do you think shot it down? Who did it? What was it armed with, why were no fragments of an air-to-air missile found? Why did no one on the ground see another aircraft in the area? How did they silence the pilots who went out to do this shoot-down? They didn't, because they didn't have to. It's the government's great shame that the world's greatest military couldn't stop a passenger liner even with rather substantial notice. They may have been scrambling to do so, but they didn't make it in time. There's not a single shred of evidence to suggest that they could...or that they did.

Because it DID NOT HAPPEN. The Air Force was NOT prepared to do that. It takes time to get planes armed and in the air. They didn't have that time, nor sufficient coordination. For all that the FBI and CIA SHOULD have known something was afoot, for all that some experts had warned previous adminstrations of this particular kind of threat--our nation was NOT prepared. Nobody had their duct tape. Nobody had their fighters armed!

Moreover, you KNOW that by NOW some Dem Senator would have leaked details to the press if what you have talked yourself into "believing" was true. They don't have details because it isn't true, but they all want you doubting, doubting, doubting. If there was the barest SHRED of evidence that 93 was shot down, it would be in our faces. The approval numbers of this administration is a source of constant fume and fury from the Democrats who are pulling out ALL stops to try to embarrass him. They would like nothing better than to hold impeachment hearings.

SURE our government lies to us. However, this isn't a lie. You have to ignore facts, ignore physical laws, ignore all real evidence to believe that there was no effective passenger resistance, that there was a shoot-down, or that anyone other than Islamic terrorists brought down those four planes that day.

Whether they actually made it into the cockpit, they succeeded in thwarting the aims of the terrorists. Heroes enough for me. They TRIED. And everytime I read about somebody lying down and letting criminals walk all over them, I get mad all over again. We should all know better now. We should have learned: you ALWAYS resist evil with any means available to you.

302 posted on 08/07/2003 11:26:41 PM PDT by ChemistCat (Oklahoma City--Where 56% of HS Seniors Get No Diploma, And No One Knows Why Not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies]

To: habs4ever
Uh, the plane was falling apart from stress...like at speeds it shouldn't have been travelling.The speed with which Flight 175 hit the WTC South Tower was almost enough to blow that plane apart, and the pilot barely got it under control for it's attack approach.

And can you just IMAGINE the conspiracy theories that would have been spun - dozens of them - if Flight 175 had indeed broken apart due purely to being overstressed, just moments before it hit the South Tower, as the entire world was watching on live television? It would be ... just like this thread!

303 posted on 08/07/2003 11:46:40 PM PDT by Timesink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: grayout
Actually, the Pentagon might not have been a primary target. In any case, the hijacker at the controls of that plane didn't quite hit the Pentagon at the most destructive angle. I believe the plane hit the ground before hitting the building.
304 posted on 08/08/2003 12:05:22 AM PDT by August West
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Marianne; sinkspur
Also, I have seen many articles that state cellphones wouldn't have been able to operate for one reason or another, e.g. altitude. (Again, I don't know enough to have an opinion.) If you have reliable information which refutes the above, please post it. Thank you.

I'm not going to go picking through Google, but there is absolutely zero question that cell phones work just fine on commercial airliners. (Well, "fine" may be too strong a term; read on for why. But they work, they're just more prone to dropouts.) The average cell phone tower covers an area of about 3-5 miles or so, maybe more or less depending on surrounding terrain. But what most people don't understand is that the 3-5 mile range isn't merely along the ground; it also works just as far straight up in the air. (And, indeed, the signals can often go farther, since there's not much terrain up there.) So unless your flight is cruising at a very high altitude (25,000 to 30,000 feet and up), your phone will work just as it does on the ground. (And as I just noted, it'll probably work even at 30,000 feet and up ... the signals will just tend to get steadily worse in quality the higher you go.) All the 9/11 flights spent much of their time in the air at far lower altitudes, so the people on board wouldn't have had any trouble at all making calls.

There are two reasons for the urban legend that cell phones can't work on airplanes (and its wackier cousin, the urban legend that merely turning a cell phone on during flight will cause the electronic controls of the plane to start spitting out false data in the cockpit and risk putting the flight into a death spiral). Both are almost entirely based on the desire of both the airline and cell phone industries not to have people make calls on planes:

1) [The following is somewhat oversimplified, but going into dull technical details will add nothing meaningful to the explanation.] Cell phones work by handing off your phone call from one cell phone tower to another as you move around (usually by driving). Usually, you'll only be putting out a strong signal to one tower at any given point on the ground, and it takes your call. As you drive and one tower notices your signal getting weaker, it'll pass your call off to the next tower down the line. In a congested area, your call may be intercepted by several towers at once, but the system is smart enough to sort it out and say, "Okay, tower X, you take it." However, it does take some computing power to hand those calls off, and the system isn't perfect, thus sometimes your phone will just go dead when the handoff is attempted. (It will, of course, also go dead if the only tower in the area you just drove into is full, but that scenario's not relevant here.) Now, imagine yourself 3 or 4 miles up in the sky, flipping on your cell phone. The moment you try to place a call, it's going to bounce off dozens of towers on the ground, because your line of sight from the plane covers such a gigantic area of the ground. It would add major congestion your cell phone provider's system, particularly if there were thousands of people doing it from the sky at every moment. In addition, the chances of your call getting dropped would be much higher than it is when you're on the ground. Again, multiply that by thousands of people making such calls at any given moment. You'd end up with lots of angry cell phone users that think their cell phone service stinks. Obviously, the cell phone companies aren't too thrilled about either of these scenarios, so they're content to have you keep your phone off while you're in the air.

2) The airlines just don't want the multiple hassles. First of all, they know the urban legend is out there about "cell phones making airline electronics go haywire." They don't want passengers freaking out the moment someone pulls a cell phone out of their pocket and flips it on.

Second, they don't want their already angry customers, who have already gone through the hell that is the boarding process and are now enduring a much lower level of service on board than they used to get, to also have to put up with having half the people on the plane making loud obnoxious cell phone calls throughout the flight. It's just one more thing to really get on the nerves of people that are already pissed off and miserable just being on the plane in the first place.

Third, because of the urban legend, they know that if anything were to happen on board that caused the slightest injury to someone - say, bad turbulence - and the injured person saw another passenger using a cell phone around the same time, there's a very good chance that passenger will sue, claiming "the cell phone did it." (It's total junk science, but that's never stopped gigantic monetary payouts before.)

Fourth, if you must make a call at all, a lot of airlines want you to use the Verizon AirFone that's built into the back of all their seats ... you know, the one that costs $4 just to connect and then $4 a minute after that. They know you're not going to do that in a million years if you've got 1000 free anytime minutes on your own cell phone.

So, just like with the cell phone companies, all in all the airlines are quite happy to have you keep your phone in your purse and your mouth closed while in the air.

Regular cell phone usage in the air is, however, probably going to start becoming a reality at some point in the next few years, as cell phone technology gets even better than it already is (more towers, fewer dropouts, better switching equipment, etc ... less reason for the cell phone companies to worry about overstressed systems) and as the government finally gets around to proving empirically that using a cell phone on board a modern aircraft does not cause the instruments in the cockpit to go nuts. (And they did indeed announce just a couple of weeks ago that they are going to start scientific testing of the effects of cell phones on airplane electronics, to settle the issue once and for all.) It'll still annoy the hell out of the other passengers, but once the airlines no longer have a convenient excuse to disallow it, a lot of people will do it.

For now though, if you still don't believe the phones will work, just sneak your phone open while you're in the air and try to call home and listen to your own answering machine message ... or even just send a text message to someone and have them message you back. It'll work.

Four airliners were flown by remote control? It's not even possible.

Well ... it's possible. It most certainly did not happen on 9/11, but the most modern Airbuses pretty much fly themselves, to the extent that a lot of pilots don't like them because they don't have enough control over what's going on. You could certainly rig up a Boeing to fly by remote control, but the number of people involved to pull it off on four commercial Boeings full of live passengers would cause even the most credulous conspiracy theorist to think twice about even considering the possibility.

Oh, okay, who am I kidding. They'll believe anything.

305 posted on 08/08/2003 1:10:09 AM PDT by Timesink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

Comment #306 Removed by Moderator

Comment #307 Removed by Moderator

Comment #308 Removed by Moderator

To: August West
I agree the Pentagon was not the likely target. I believe the Primary target for BOTH planes headed to DC was the Capitol Bldg. with the Capital Mall as their best visual.
309 posted on 08/08/2003 4:04:20 AM PDT by Sacajaweau (God Bless Our Troops!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: Arkinsaw
It makes absolutely no sense that the terrorists ditched it because they thought a passenger could bring the plane in safely. The terrorists destiny was 72 Virginians one way or another. They lost control. They are interpreting statements as orders etc.. Regardless, had the passengers maintained their seats, the plane would have kept going. The pilots lost control in the chaos...simple as that. It was not a controlled takedown.
310 posted on 08/08/2003 4:12:07 AM PDT by Sacajaweau (God Bless Our Troops!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
I remain in awe of how anyone could convince a human being that killing themselves would bring on 72 virgins. If you set out to convince someone of this, how would you do it? I want to know!
311 posted on 08/08/2003 4:28:44 AM PDT by DooDahhhh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: DooDahhhh
I would guess it is the same thing as Christians believing in Heaven as some extraordinary place we go to when we die. It's pure faith as "dead men tell no tales". I have a circa 1850 book written by an American who traveled to the Middle East. The part about their schools was interesting. They had one book, the Koran. They would memorize it. It would be interpreted to them. The "rocking" that you see was for concentration. I wish I could print out the entire text. It is just "telling" on how to brainwash and control a society.
312 posted on 08/08/2003 4:43:08 AM PDT by Sacajaweau (God Bless Our Troops!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]

To: dead
discounts the popular perception of insurgent passengers grappling with terrorists to seize the plane's controls.

I don't know that this was really the perception.

I never thought the heros of Flight 93 were capable of flying a commercial aircraft.

It was always my perception that their intention was to crash the plane sooner rather than later.

They knew what the outcome was going to be they just wanted to influence the outcome in the favor of less loss of life.

313 posted on 08/08/2003 4:52:14 AM PDT by PFKEY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DBrow
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.

360-degree turns? Did Maxine Waters write this?

314 posted on 08/08/2003 4:52:35 AM PDT by Fresh Wind (Never forget: CLINTON PARDONED TERRORISTS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
I think the rocking and total brainwashing must be the answer. Because most Christians, I think, want to make their lives very meaningful while on earth and are not in that big of hurry to get to whatever afterlife that they perceive as are the fanatical muslim folk.
315 posted on 08/08/2003 4:56:25 AM PDT by DooDahhhh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]

To: ambrose
I still say it was a death ray from a UFO.
316 posted on 08/08/2003 4:56:46 AM PDT by AppyPappy (If You're Not A Part Of The Solution, There's Good Money To Be Made In Prolonging The Problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Palladin
I completely agree with you.

Take the ugliest motives imaginable and apply them to the Associated Press. Then double that. And you might get close to how evil they are.

BUT, there are multiple well-sourced, well-reported press accounts of multiple areas of debris in the flight 93 crash.

That is, at least, curious. We are now on a heightened state of alert because someone found an AQ weapons shop where weapons and bombs were being built inside of small electronics. Before 9/11 and after, AQ had made and used small bombs on passenger planes.

If the truth is more complex, so be it. Whether there was a bomb or the plane was shot down or a gun was smuggled aboard or what - I voted for Dubya and will vote for him again. I just think we are avoiding the truth.
317 posted on 08/08/2003 4:57:56 AM PDT by eno_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

Comment #318 Removed by Moderator

To: cyncooper
Yes her name was Lisa and she worked for ITT I believe? The company that supplied phone service on the plane.
319 posted on 08/08/2003 5:06:12 AM PDT by angcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: dead
...is there a triumphant tone to this article? There sure as s**t is. Think about it: would the terrorists in the cockpit decide to crash the plane if the struggle with the passengers was going well? Of course not. The passengers were winning. They thwarted a terrorist attack.
320 posted on 08/08/2003 5:09:05 AM PDT by bobsatwork
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 381-399 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson