Hijacker Crashed Flight 93 on 9/11

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

[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?