Hijacker Crashed Flight 93 on 9/11

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

[TomB]

Could you point to ONE news story where it was conclusively stated that the passengers got to the controls of the plane?

[HitmanLV]

The myth at the time was certainly that they breached the cockpit - I remember that pretty clearly from the days following 9-11.

As for their resistance precipitating the aborting of the mission, that's probably what happened.

Unless the plane got shot down, which is also a possibility.

[Poohbah]

I'm looking at it from the terrorists' POV for a second, explaining their motives.

Their goals:

1. Fly into the White House.

2. Kill a bunch of Americans. (Which would be achieved by Condition #1)

In wargaming terms, getting both #1 and #2 is, from the terrorists' POV, a decisive victory. Getting only #2 is, again from the bad guys' POV, a tactical victory. But it's still a victory. They succeeded in killing a bunch of Americans. Whether the Americans accomplished their own goals or not is irrelevant to the terrorists.

[HitmanLV]

I must have missed the phone call from the cockpit - oh yea, that's right, there was no phone call from the cockpit!

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.

And that's the message - the heroes never made it to the cockpit, never battled the hijackers for control. It never happened. Anyone who still belives it has problems.

[Pukka Puck]

"In response to a question on recurring rumors that the plane might have been shot down, Crowley said that at this stage of the investigation, no possibility was being ruled out. He stressed, however, that no evidence had surfaced to support that theory."

From your site.

No evidence.

[HitmanLV]

Sure, that version of events was discussed on news and talk programs during the weeks after 9-11. I know the Fox & Friends gang, for example, have repeated that story.

Are you suggesting that this is the first time you heard of the 'battle in the cockpit' story? Up until now, it's been the popular perception, as the articles (correctly) says.

[Marianne]

If I did ANYTHING for 72 hours nonstop, I might conclude that there were no airliners involved in 9/11, at all.
Excellent reply. I just happened on the article this evening and thought it should be included in the archives.
There have been other articles that speculated on the "remote control theory" and I haven't seen anything that authoritatively refutes it. (I don't know enough about the subject to have an opinion.)
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.

[Pukka Puck]

"The hijackers probably said they had a bomb to discourage a passenger revolt."

Bingo!

[habs4ever]

I think it has been confirmed by KSM and others from 2001 that the target was the Capitol Building, not the WH.

[TomB]

The myth at the time was certainly that they breached the cockpit - I remember that pretty clearly from the days following 9-11.

I don't care what the "myth at the time" was, you are explicitly stating that the news reports and we all stated that the passengers rushed the cocpit, grabbed the controls, and crashed the plane into the ground. I NEVER, EVER remember anybody stating that that was definitely what happened. It was speculated that the passegers go to the cabin and tried to break in, especially since it was reported that you could hear a distubance on the voice recorder. But it was never stated conclusively that they took control of the plane.

[sinkspur]

There have been other articles that speculated on the "remote control theory" and I haven't seen anything that authoritatively refutes it.

Because it's too stupid to refute. Why bother with such lunacy?

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

[TomB]

Are you suggesting that this is the first time you heard of the 'battle in the cockpit' story? Up until now, it's been the popular perception, as the articles (correctly) says.

For crying out loud, you are on the internet, surely you can find ONE STORY where this is stated as fact?

I've heard speculation, but I've also heard stated over and over and over, "we'll never know what really happened".

[HitmanLV]

I said on another post that I distinctly remember the Fox and Friends gang talking about this version of events. I do EVER EVER remember it, even if you don't (or won't). Certainly it was speculative, since no one knew exactly what happened, but it was the preferred story/myth at the time, whether you choose to remember it or not.

Now, with more facts, it seems that that version likely didn't happen. And as I said, I didn't belive it at the time, and I don't now. This recent finding supports my belief.

[Pukka Puck]

In case you didn't notice, the object on 9/11 was not to blow up planes with bombs, but to fly airplanes into important governmental and financial institutions.

I hope this helps.

[BigBobber]

Obviously, it would be easier and more certain for the terrorists plans to bring something onto the plane that looked like a bomb, but was not a bomb, thus would not be detected by screeners.

A real strap-on bomb and a fake strap-on bomb look the same to an airport screener. They were only doing a visual and metal search. Screeners had no way to detect explosives on passengers on 9-11. Therefore it was not any easier or more certain to smuggle a fake bomb as you suggest.

Both real and fake bombs entail the same risk of detection getting onto a plane. One gives you a huge advantage of completing a suicide mission (i.e. at least killing all the passengers and crew) and other does not. So why risk the mission to bring something on a plane that can only be used to scare people?

Since all the terrorist flights were incinerated, there may never be direct evidence of bombs on these flights. We do have these FACTS:

The passengers reported seeing the bomb on a terrorist.

The strap-on bomb is a MO often used by Islamist terrorists.

Significant debris was found miles from the main crash site.

The new information from the FBI. One of the terrorists told another terrorist (in Arabic) to "crash the plane".

[jonathonandjennifer]

Isn't the "cockpit" on an airliner called the "cabin"?

I beleive the "cabin" is where the passengers sit; hence the term "cabin attendents". Anyway, the heroic passengers saved the White House.

[HitmanLV]

Thats exactly what I'm saying - the preferred speculative story (up until now, actually) was that the 'lets roll' posse got to the cockpit. They didn't. Most people who could think for themselves didn't but it then.

This story supports that skepticism.

We will never know what really happened, but we can say with some conviction that the 'overtaking the cockpit/fighting for controls/crash in the field' story is just that, a 'story.'

This doesn't diminish the americans on the plane who resisted. I think there is enough evidence to support that. I'm just saying that pretty much the preferred myth has been debunked. Though we will never be 'sure.'

[Pukka Puck]

"after deliberating non-stop for 72 hours"

They should have at least had a nap.

[Marianne]

Because it's too stupid to refute. Why bother with such lunacy?
Four airliners were flown by remote control? It's not even possible.
Well, if you say so, but I would appreciate something a little more authoritative.
Excerpts from the posted article:
In evidence given to the enquiry, Captain Kent Hill (retd.) of the US Air Force, and friend of Chic Burlingame, the pilot of the plane that crashed into the Pentagon, stated that the US had on several occasions flown an unmanned aircraft, similar in size to a Boeing 737, across the Pacific from Edwards Air Force base in California to South Australia. According to Hill it had flown on a pre programmed flight path under the control of a pilot in an outside station. Hill also quoted Bob Ayling, former British Airways boss, in an interview given to the London Economist on Septembe 20th, 2001. Ayling admitted that it was now possible to control an aircraft in flight from either the ground or in the air. This was confirmed by expert witnesses at the inquiry who testified that airliners could be controlled by electro-magnetic pulse or radio frequency instrumentation from command and control platforms based either in the air or at ground level.