Hijacker Crashed Flight 93 on 9/11

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

[HitmanLV]

I myself was under the impression that it had been debunked soon after 9/11.

No, not at all. I think it is still the popular conception, which is why this story putting the myth to rest is important.

[eno_]

There was nothing found at a distance from the crash site that is not perfectly consistent with 1)partial breakdown of structural integrity caused by extreme maneuvers (that's techie for "the plane was and a few bits sheared off) and 2)normal dispersal from the crash.

Except for the pieces of human remains. Unless the plane was "gyrating out of control" while a moose bit someone's sister while standing on the wing.

[Swordmaker]

"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?

I have to assume the writer meant the F-16 was having to do complete circles to match the speed of the airliner... which is bogus.

While the speed an F-16 can achieve is far faster than the top speed of a 757, the F-16 is certainly capable of flying slower than its top speed and matching and pacing the 757 if necessary.

[Swordmaker]

Towers just don't fall like trees. These towers were designed to support loads from above, and that's all. How in the world would they have enough lateral strength to support the loading necessary to impart rotational momentum on that big a mass?

Once those towers started falling they were going to take the shortest path toward the center of the earth, straight down. This was a very sophisticated attack, and the attackers would have to know this. It's not rocket science!

Actually, it is probably more complex than rocket science.

Assuming the bombers knew the building would fall straight down...or that the attack itself was very sophisticated... is wrong. A sophisticated, knowledgable attacker would have known that the van bomb was inadequate to the task and would also have known where the best placement was... they didn't.

The testimony of some of the conspirators was that they expected to blow out the side supports "and have the building fall into the second tower."

[HitmanLV]

I never suggested they sucked. Where do you get this stuff?

[DBrow]

Silas-

A fighter pilot spends 5 hours chasing around New York and Washington asking planes to land and looking for bogies. Nobody knows what's going on, no real details, but lots of rumors and scuttlebut. Information flow is chaotic and contradictory. Some people like sensationalism, some people are venting frustration and fear. He lands, and speaks to other pilots and ground crew who know that authorization to shoot has been given, and that Flight 93 has augered in in PA. Someone says, "I heard it was shot down".

The pilot is interviewed and he says, "I heard from someone the Pennsylvania plane was shot down."

This "news" based on tired, frightened people who just do not KNOW what the heck is going on, gets reported as "news" worldwide in two hours.

Later on, we find that ther just were no planes with live ammo nearby. The "fighter jet" eyewitnesses saw turns out to be a white Lear or Cessna twin jet. The debris field is actually a bit smaller than initially reported, and it looks like the plane broke up a bit before crashing. We have all learned a bit since those first 12 or 20 hours, and the story pieces together a little differently.

Because of the Web, the first confused stories filed by people who did not have all the facts (but were still reporting what they honestly heard) are still out there, for us to read.

[DBrow]

Actually, considering that lots of al Queda stuff was going on, like calling in bomb threats to hundreds of control towers and three flight control centers, it would not surprise me if there were calls to newspapers with "eyewitness accounts" and "I am a flight controller. I can't give my name but..."

In other words, deliberate disinformation which could be delivered with very little risk to the perpetrator.


We do know there are many hostile operatives in the US (and I sometimes wonder if some carry press passes).

[Area Freeper]

Anyway you look at it our goverment failed us big time on 9/11. And now they are hidding the facts. The plane was shot down. Simple. Passengers could have fought but I do not think they crashed the plane into a field. I guess I am an Axhole for believing that. The Goverment never lies...

I believed what you are saying for about a month. In October of 2001, I played golf with an FBI Agent who was investigating not this flight, but the Pentagon flight. Eyewittness accounts had the plan inverted and intact when it crashed. We all love a conspiracy, but your theory (shared by a lot of us) has too many holes. Better to realize that the terrorists realized that they could not defend themselves against the superior numbers of a brave assault and they took the coward's way out. That is what happened.

[Ichneumon]

Answer me this: If the passengers did not gain access to the cockpit (ie. the cockpit was sealed with the hijackers commanding the plane) then why would the hijackers deliberately crash the plane? It doesn't make sense.

The hijackers knew that the passengers were trying to retake the cockpit from them, and might well succeed.

So rather than possibly lose to the passengers and end up dead or in an American prison, thus "failing" in the eyes of Allah, the hijackers decided that going for the "sure thing" and crashing the plane immediately and killing 40 Americans (33 passengers, 7 crew) was good enough to earn them their martyrdom. So that's what they did.

The point of the article is that contrary to earlier assumptions that the passengers might have actually broken into the cockpit and been physically struggling with the hijackers for control of the plane when it went down, they actually had not made it into the cockpit (yet) at the time the plane crashed. It's not saying they *couldn't* get into the cockpit, just that they hadn't by the time the hijackers decided to end it on their own terms.

But again, the passenger uprising *was* the reason for it, and they're still heroes who saved countless lives and a priceless national landmark/symbol at the intended target.

[Ichneumon]

But the truth ain't quite like Hollywood, so therefore the passengers were not really heroes. Is that the point of this story?

Contrary to many other people, I really don't see anything derogatory in the article, and no indication that it's trying to "de-hero" the passengers.

In fact, it goes out of its way to quote a lot of folks who specifically say that they're still heroes even in the new scenario, and doesn't even try to find anyone to disagree.

It's just saying, prior popular belief had the passengers actually grappling with the hijackers in the cockpit, but the actual events were somewhat different.

I think the line that people are reading negatively is, "This theory...discounts the popular perception of insurgent passengers grappling with terrorists to seize the plane's controls." But I think it's a mistake to read that as "discounts the perception of heroism". Instead, it's just literally saying, it contradicts the notion that the passengers were literally fighting over the controls of the plane at the time it went down.

For people who wonder why the article was written and presume an ulterior motive, the fact remains that this is newly released information, and disseminating information is the news media's job.

[Ichneumon]

I still think the whole article is stupid and accomplishes nothing.

It releases new information that is now available, which is always a worthwhile thing.

[Lancey Howard]

The only new concrete(?) piece of information being reported in this story is that cockpit tapes seem to reveal that a hijacker apparently gave a command to another hijacker to crash the plane.

If true, this command could have been given during a fight in the cockpit. (I happen to think this is a stronger possibility than not, but there you go.)

In any event, the exact details of what actually unfolded do not matter in the end (and will never be known for certain, anyway), because there is no question but that some of the passengers fought back and were indeed valiant heroes. We know this from solid evidence. Beyond that, it's all theory and guessing games.

Regards,
LH

[Ichneumon]

Except for the pieces of human remains.

I can assure you that if a plane is tumbling out of control violently enough to rip pieces of the plane off, pieces of passenger can go with them as well.

Furthermore, a 700+ mph crash can fling pieces of debris (and body parts) amazing distances. As a car or plane breaks up in high-speed crashes, various parts begin to spin with enormous force and can "catapult" parts of themselves or other pieces of debris off in practically any direction, like a baseball batter hitting a fastball.

Finally, another poster has pointed out that one of the hijackers may have set off an explosive belt during the descent, which would have left body parts (his, or someone else's) scattered through the air.

None of these three scenarios require a shootdown by a missile.

[eno_]

There were eyewitnesses to the crash. None of them saw the plane doing what you desribe. The plane was witnessed by a man in a light plane shortly before the crash. He described the plane banking left and right and turning, but not out of control.

[Pukka Puck]

If you had bothered to read the article you cited, it is WND quoting from the Mirror. It is third hand bullshit, as anyone who is not a dope can plainly see. It says much about the credibility of the WND that they use the Mirror as the source for their article.

There has been much more written about the crash of flight 93 than that single WND article quoting the not credible Mirror which is worse than our National Enquirer.

The sum total of all that has been written by credible sources leads anyone who is not a nut to conclude that the airplane crashed intact due to the passengers attempting to take over the cockpit.

Get a clue, nitwit.

[Pukka Puck]

Since you are too thick to notice that the WND report is based on the Mirror, I thought I would help you out by selecting quotes from your cite.

"Echoing reports made immediately after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, several eyewitnesses claim in a report by London's Daily Mirror"

"The Mirror report quotes multiple residents in and around Shanksville, Pa., "

"For instance, the Mirror reports some"

"The Daily Mirror cites other factors "

 

 

[DBrow]

See some of my earlier posts giving links to an article that states that the terrorists were shouting "Get out of here! Get out! Get out of here!" a few minutes before the end of the tape.

The new information from digitally filtered processing reveals someone giving the order to crash the plane, but that is after the Get Out comments.

Seems likely to me that the hijackers were shouting because passengers were pushing their way into the cabin. Cowards hate losing, hate having to face the music, and they probably thought that the passengers just might compromise their mission.

Imagine being in prison with other al Quaeda and having your cellmates know that YOU failed in your critical mission, that a bunch of American civilians beat you up and a female flight attendant tied you up with First Class cloth napkins?