The first sentence says the hijacker crashed the plane because of a passenger uprising. The second sentence suggests that this discounts the popular perception of passengers struggling to seize the controls. This, to me, is a distinction without a difference. Whether or not the passenger uprising had reached the cockpit is irrelevant to the fact that the plane crashed directly as a result of their actions. Clearly, if the passengers had remained passive, the plane would have been flown into the White House. I think this article's account is an attempt to undermine the inspiration the entire country took from the passengers' heroism. And all based on the irrelevant factoid that their uprising apparently hadn't reached the cockpit yet when the hijackers realized they'd lost control of the plane. Big friggin deal.