Hijacker Crashed Flight 93 on 9/11

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

[Asclepius]

Yeah. The story is a crock. Because it would have been easy for the government or whoever to telephone all those friends, family members, telephone operators, pretending to be people aboard the flight, describing the scene, talking about the uprising, saying "let's roll" and so forth, even as fighter interceptors were shooting flight 93 out of the sky. It would be nothing to plan and coordinate such a fraud.

[Ima Lurker]

....heading for the White House but didn't make it because of a passenger uprising...... That sounds like heroism to me. I don't know what point they are trying to make with this report, but they are not doing a very good job of it.

[TomGuy]

Citing transcripts of the still-secret cockpit recordings

So are 28 pages of the 9-11 report.

Maybe one of the rebelling passengers said some unkind, un-pc things to the Arabic guests who were "visiting" the cockpit; and our government doesn't want that to shade our relationship with the Saudi government. (end sarcasm)

[cyncooper]

click

[Our man in washington]

Greyout wrote "Every other pilot hit their target perfect."

Didn't the flight path show that the plane that hit the Pentagon actually may have been going for the White House, but was unable to find it? Also, didn't the plane hit the ground a few feet before the Penatgon?

The planes that the the World Trade Center could have cause more mayhem if they had hit lower, but we can't know the pilot's intention.

[Lancey Howard]

Whether the heroic passengers managed to gain access to the cockpit doesn't really matter.

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.

I have to admit to being confused here.

[facedown]

The terrorists could have been beaten down and a passenger unsuccessfully tried to fly the plane himself.

There are any number of plausible scenarios, but the plane came down because of the actions of the passengers, not of the terrorists. The terr's would have fulfilled their objective by any means.

[cyncooper]

I never belived the american 'lets roll' hero story and I still don't.

And you think the woman who worked at the airlines and told that to investigators----that that's what she heard Beamer say, and it so happened that that was Beamer's typical saying when the family was about to set off on an outing---that was all concocted?

How sad for you that you can't see the plain and simple truth.

Why would that woman lie? She would not. She told too much of her conversation with Beamer that verifies how he was--and she told it before she ever spoke with Beamer's wife.

[Pukka Puck]

The scenario described in this article is the American 'lets roll' hero story, fool.

[cinFLA]

How?

[Focault's Pendulum]

Also, How does this change anything-there was a passenger uprising/revolt:

It, unfortunately attempts to change the original media perception, that our people made it in to the cockpit.

Our people might have prevented further destruction by simply making an attempt.

If true...then our lost souls are just as brave for not allowing any continuation of an original plan...something of which we can speculate.

[Paleo Conservative]

investigators now believe that a hijacker in the cockpit aboard United Airlines Flight 93 instructed terrorist-pilot Ziad Jarrah to crash the jetliner into a Pennsylvania field because of a passenger uprising in the cabin.

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.

The authors conclusions are not supported by the facts in the article. The If the passegers had not attempted to take control of the plane, the hijackers would have either crashed their plane into the White House or the Capitol unless an Air National Guard plane (unarmed) had rammed Flight 93 first.

The passenger were heroes. They new that if they did nothing they would be dead, and that their plane would be used to kill hundreds or thousands of people on the ground. They also knew an important landmark building would be destroyed. No, contrary to the leftist drivel of this Reuters article the passengers were heroes. Also, the hijackers proved themselves to be cowards like all the islamonazi jihadists.

[Dead Dog]

That's a good point. They might have been trying to thwart the passangers by manuvering, but lost the craft after inducing flutter.

[cinFLA]

Yeah. The story is a crock. Because it would have been easy for the government or whoever to telephone all those friends, family members, telephone operators, pretending to be people aboard the flight, describing the scene, talking about the uprising, saying "let's roll" and so forth, even as fighter interceptors were shooting flight 93 out of the sky. It would be nothing to plan and coordinate such a fraud.

Tin-foil hat alert.

[archy]

That story doesn't jibe with me. The terrorists could fly the planes themselves.

*Some* of the hijackers were minimally-trained pilots. Those aboard Flight 93 may have gotten the right one.

It also appears that the terrorists aboard Flight 11, the one with Mohammed Atta aboard, hedged their bets.

-archy-/-

[SJackson]

I preferred the myth.

Doesn't matter. Whether they gained the cockpit or not has no bearing on their actions.

[pepperdog]

You are so right. This changes nothing, I don't even see why it was published. A really stupid article that changes absolutely nothing, the plane crashed because of the actions of the passengers PERIOD

[arasina]

I agree; there's a triumphant tone to this. Following the liberal recipe as usual:

A WINNING RECIPE FOR "ANTI-BUSH ADMINISTRATION SURPRISE"

• Take one box of Reuters archived wire stories about Flight 93.
• Stir in the official who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
• Mix in a little "President Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft have regularly praised the courage of those aboard Flight 93..."
• Sprinkle in speculation.
• Whip family members until frothy.
• Add lies for garnish. Your guests will love this surprise. They'll eat it up!

  (This is better than what I heard from a liberal relative last year. Said our own military shot down Flight 93.)

[DuncanWaring]

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?

Because the hijackers figured that if the passengers had retaken control of the cabin, they were about to retake control of the cockpit, and the hijackers, chickensh*ts that they were panicked.