Hijacker Crashed Flight 93 on 9/11

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

[Poohbah]

Actually, it was. And it got righteously ripped to shreds.

[Asclepius]

No, the story that day (and days following) was that the plane went down in the field because of the battle in the cockpit.

Good. We identified your problem. You read too much into the reportage. All that was ever reported is that the passengers rose up and the aircraft went down. What the investigation has revealed is that the two events are causally connnected: the air craft went down because the terrorists did not want to risk losing the aircraft even if it meant never making it to their target etc., etc.

[DBrow]

http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/WATflight93independent.htm

Here's a recently-updated site that strongly suggests that Bush lied, the plane was shot down, the passenger revolt failed. I think we will see a full-court effort to give this story legs. The website repeats lots of the unsubstantiated stuff about the crash.

I remember an article that had an analysis of the flight data recorder- IIRC the article mentioned that the plane was in supersonic flight while decending rapidly, well before the crash. Help me out, folks, I can't find it. If so, the plane would have been shedding pieces- it is not designed for SS flight.

Shameless people who will do anything to get the White House back are exploiting the fog of data surrounding any major event.

[sinkspur]

Ex-military are not precluded from being conspiracy theorists. Some of the biggest supporters of the John Birch Society are ex-military.

Look, if you want to believe the Bilderbergers flew four 767s into buildings, be my guest. I think the entire subject is ludicrous.

[BigBobber]

Yes the primary plan was to cause as much damage as possible.

However, they were on a suicide mission. They were not going to come back alive. Before 9-11, nobody knew if you could commandeer multiple planes using only small knives. I think it is very plausible that they had a backup plan to blow up the planes if things went awry.

These were clever and determined people. Strap-on bombs were well within their capability. They told the passengers they had a bomb. The passengers saw the bomb.

Why does it rock your world so much for me to suggest the obvious?

[Poohbah]

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.

This part is true. The aircraft in question was an RQ-4 Global Hawk UAV, which is *designed* to be flown remotely.

However, one canNOT simply take over a commercial aircraft's flight controls and start driving the plane yourself. They aren't wired up for that sort of thing.

[Pukka Puck]

No bomb. Not shot down. That's the fact jack.

[A Navy Vet]

As Neil E. Wright says,

The era of Bin Laden ended the moment the brave militia on Flight 93 reported for duty. We will never forget you.

[HitmanLV]

I don't doubt that it was a failure of reporting. Indeed, that's been my point all along.

And certainly the resistance led to the hijackers aborting their mission, whatever it was.

[Pukka Puck]

The Americans on that plane were effective in preventing the terrorists from hitting their target. We will never know whether or not they made it into the cockpit or not, but the fact that the succeeded in preventing the successful murder of hundreds if not thousands of additional people is the bottom line.

[Pukka Puck]

"The 8-9 mile trail of 'debris', to the crash site, is quite telling."

Have a credible cite for this scenario?

[F.J. Mitchell]

I do not believe this version. The terrorists would surely have found something more destructive than an open field to crash into, surely there were targets within minutes of where the plane came down.

The passengers were heroes, saving many lives-reacting just as all passengers will react on any other hi-jacked flight in the USA from here on.

Fool us once, shame on you-fool us twice, shame on us.

[foreverfree]

bump

[onyx]

Thank you for your posts to me, all excellent.

[xm177e2]

Sentence 2 contradicts sentence 1.

No, it doesn't.

When the article refers to "the popular perception of insurgent passengers grappling with terrorists to seize the plane's controls," it is referring to the perception that the passengers were literally grappling with the controls--like they had the controls in their hands. It looks like they never got the chance to try to get that far because the terrorists crashed the plane first.

[vaudine]

How does this info change anything? The plane crashed because the passengers "tried" to storm the cockpit. Who knows whether they got inside or not. I'm betting they did and "jerrah" crashed the plane to avoid being totally thwarted and overcome, instead of just having the hijackers mission aborted by the passengers. If this had not happened, our Capitol or White House would have been plane-bombed.

vaudine

[Pukka Puck]

"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?"

Very good points.

[ChemistCat]

It explains why the wreckage was found spread about over several miles.

I suppose we REALLY did something awful to Columbia, huh? Does your knowledge of the physics of crash and accident scenes enlighten you about that?

My husband did crash and accident photography for the Air Force. Even when a smaller plane augers straight in, the bits and pieces bounce and scatter pretty widely. On the other hand, all aircraft are subject to balance problems, and if you have a bunch of people suddenly run to the front of the airplane, you're going to throw it out of balance, and an inexperience pilot may not be able to recover--if he cared to...they weren't too worried about safe landings, you know.

I don't believe the Clinton-Afflicted Air Force had its ducks in a row nor adequate warning to be shooting anything down that day...not over the mainland of the U.S. of A.

[Arkinsaw]

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.

Let's see, the passengers stated that they were going to try and take the cockpit and had hot water and beverage tray. The cockpit recordings show a disturbance shortly after with crashing sounds, shouts, and breaking dishes. During this disturbance the terrorists are heard talking about ending it and running the plane into the ground. The plane runs into the ground.

You seem to be making the completely illogical inference that if the passengers did not actually seize the controls (and presumably make a phone call proving it) then they therefore CANNOT be responsible for bringing the plane down and saving the White House.

The passengers did NOT reach the controls. Nevertheless they are indeed responsible for that plane coming down where it did instead of at the White House by making the attempt. It is likely that they were not able to get to the control BECAUSE the terrorists crashed the plane to prevent them.

Not sure why you have the need to play with words to separate the actions of the passengers from the results of the flight.