I don’t know about you, but this quote from the article
seems a little fishy to me. It doesn’t make any sense . I can imagine this:
Hijacker: Master, there is a passenger uprising in the cabin. What should I do?
Master: How the “beep” would I know?
Hijacker: Well, should we carry on our plans to crash into the whitehouse?
Master: duh, what, can you please repeat the question.
Hijacker: Should we carry on our plans to crash into the White House?
Master: Nah, if we continue, the passangers might end up killing you and crashing the plane.
Hijacker: So, I’m going to die anyway.
Master: Well duh, I want to crash it my way. WIMPER WIMPER
Hijacker: Master, you are so stupid.
CRASH!!!
Anyway, it just sounds really fishy to me. Why would the hijacker purposely crash the plane because of a passenger uprising? It doesn’t make any sense to me, does it to you? :smack:
The terrorists concern wasn’t that the passengers might kill them and crash the plane; It was that the passengers might (and probably would have, assuming the plane wasn’t crashed) subdue the terroists and regain control of the plane.
The trick to killing terrorists is to do it before they begin their activities; I assume that most of them expect to die during whatever it is they have planned.
Well, yes, it does.
Think of the scenario diffeently
Master: What’s wrong?
Hijacker: The passengers are going to overpower us.
Master: Soon?
Hijacker: Very soon.
Master: OK, game over, we’re not going to hit our target…but be assured, there’s going to be no happy endings or trials here.
Makes perfect sense to me. Indeed, I’ve long believed that’s exactly what happened. Four hijackers in a tiny space, armed only with box cutters, are no match for the dozen or so passengers–now armed with who knows what from the cabin–breaking down the flimsy cockpit door. So what are the hijackers’ options? Ensure that you accomplish nothing by flying towards D.C. until the passengers take back the cabin, or crash the sucker into the ground and kill a couple dozen infidels?
Option #2 looks preferable from the hijackers’ p.o.v.
I didn’t even see that side of the story. But still. However, the passengers, IMO, are still heroes, because they caused the plane to miss it’s target. Of course, if they were able to regain control, who knows what would have happened.
So, perhaps the passangers did get into the cockpit and take over the plane. Who knows?
They (the family members of the victims) said the pilot even refused to crash the plane. They said it was obvious that the passengers were in the cockpit at the time.
So, perhaps the passangers did get into the cockpit and take over the plane. Who knows?
They (the family members of the victims) said the pilot even refused to crash the plane. They said it was obvious that the passengers were in the cockpit at the time.
It strikes me as being a discussion with very little point. Whether the plane was steered into the ground on purpose or crashed due to a fight over the yoke, the plane’s crashing in Pennsylvania, instead of against a target in Washington, was a direct result of the passenger uprising. Obviously the terrorists did not set out to devastate America by attacking its vital supply of open grass fields; the uprising is what caused the crash.
Which is too bad, but the truth is what it is, regardless of how people feel about it. If the data suggests it was a deliberate crash by the hijackers as a response to the uprising instead of a crash brough on directly by the uprising, it makes no difference as far as the result, obviously, and little in any other respect. I guess the families would rather believe what makes them happy. Not really surprising if you ask me.
But I happen to think the government is telling the truth here. Why the hell would they change the story except for factual support? Everyone ‘liked’ the story as it was. The fact that they made it into the cockpit doesn’t mean the plane wasn’t crashed deliberately (i.e., the ‘options’ Burnett presents aren’t mututally exclusive), and the pilot’s initial refusal to crash the plane doesn’t mean he didn’t do so later.
Also, clarity is an issue. Nobody on the plane is around to explain, everyone - especially the families, I think, because they are basing their opinions on a source that’s not 100% clear.
From the ABC story:
“The same cockpit recording was played privately in April 2002 for family members of victims aboard Flight 93, and the FBI also provided them with its best effort at producing an understandable transcript.”
From USA Today:
“Hoglan said the FBI’s transcript quotes one hijacker after fighting breaks out in the cabin asking another hijacker in the cockpit in Arabic, “Finish her/it now?”, and she believed they were discussing whether to crash the plane. The response from the second hijacker, she remembered, was either “wait” or “not now.””
And, I think, most importantly:
b]“People who have heard the recording describe it as nearly indecipherable, containing static noises, cockpit alarms and wind interspersed with cries in English and Arabic.”**
I never bought the story 100% the way the government said it happened. It obviously served their purpose to present it the way they did, with the passengers battling the terrorists and winning, but it seems obvious there are things they aren’t telling us. Why did it take YEARS for any details about the voice recorder to be released?
Is anyone else familiar with flight93crash.com? The author of that site theorized that the plane was shot down by the U.S. administration to prevent it from reaching its target. Personally, the guy struck me as somewhat of a conspiracy nut, but he made a few good points. For example, the phone calls from the “heroes” were discussed ad naseum in the press, but a 911 call from a passenger in the bathroom who described seeing smoke inside the plane was quickly swept under the rug. There were also reports of a fighter jet pursuing the plane that made some newspapers right after the crash. Another odd thing: Why does the USA Today article mention the sound of “wind” on the voice recorder?
“containing static noises, cockpit alarms and wind interspersed with cries in English and Arabic”
What’s strange is that the flight93crash.com website doesn’t appear to be there anymore. It still shows up in a google search, but there’s nothing there when you click on the link.
Anyway, I don’t want to sound like a conspiracy nut myself; I’m pretty skeptical about the “shootdown” theory. But I do suspect there’s something the government still isn’t telling us.
I’m pretty sure that flight '93 got shot down by a fighter jet, and I’m OK with that. I mean, do the math: two planes already hit some skyscrapers, another one apparently hit the pentagon…now what? Damn straight if I was president I’d order the plane shot down over a field. Why doesn’t anyone have the balls to admit this?
The crash site was spread over miles, from what I remember- and most ‘regular’ airline crashes are spread out over a relatively smaller area. If the plane was shot down, its debris would be more scattered- which it was.
psst… a little below the search link is the one for the Google cache of the page. That works. However any downstream links will not work. You must do the same google trick looking up the linked page.
In an interview on Meet the Press, Dick Cheney confirmed that the order had been given to shoot down the plane and that fighters were already en route. He also said that after the plane went down, it took two hours to “confirm” that the plane had not been shot down. It was reported as well that during a cell phone conversation, one of the passengers reported smoke out on the wing before the plane went down, a factor which was not attributable to anything that could’ve been done from the cockpit. I think the plane was shot down.
Half the conspiracy theories out there say that Flight 93 was shot down by a jet, the other half talk about how suspicious it was that fighter jets weren’t scrambled sooner and that there were so few in the air that day. Make up your minds, people!
Is there really anything to support this idea other than just questions? Any records showing jets anywhere near this plane or something?
Look very carefully on your screen, and you will find a “Preview Reply” button. Very handy. Avoids :smack: embarrassment. Does that still work on your computer?
It would have been a cruel twist of fate given that it seems like the passengers had a chance to take over the plane long before it got to its target. It wouldn’t have necessarily been avoidable (given that military intelligence probably didn’t have good info on those cell phone calls), but it certainly would have taken a lot of the emotional wind out of the administrations attempt to co-opt the heroism of passengers if it had shot them down without giving them a chance to save themselves.
However, I’m not sure I buy even the barest shootdown theory. For all we know, the terrorists could have had a bomb, and THAT information hasn’t been released. Sounds like “wind” could have very easily been caused by other things, and we have no way of knowing what sort of “smoke” the person saw: they could have simply been confused (grey clouds shooting over the wing as the place descended sharply).
We’d also have to know about the suspected path of the crash. If you want to crash a plane, it’s too not hard to simply twist it into a deadly position by turning too sharply: and investigators may have been able to tell, at the very least, the trajectory of the plane into the ground (was it a controlled steer into the ground, a careening tumble, or even a breakup prior to impact).
Finally, I don’t know how easy this would have been to cover up: who did the crash analysis and sorted the debris? FAA invesitigators?
I’m not necessarily defending the shootdown theory, but to play devil’s advocate, I’ll address some points:
Could be, but why would they keep that a secret? After all, it would be less embarassing for the government to admit that terrorists successfully hijacked a plane with a bomb, than to admit they did it with only boxcutters.
What else could cause wind other than a hole in the fuselage, and why would the cause be kept secret?
As for the “smoke”, IIRC the report that the 911 caller saw smoke on the wing was incorrect. I believe he was in the bathroom when he made the call, and the smoke supposedly was coming in under the door. I don’t even know if anyone knows for sure, because the story got classified pretty quickly after the event. I’ve heard it suggested that it could have been some sort of discharge or condensation from the ventilation system.
And that info should be available via the flight recorder, so why has so little info been released, even years after the event?
IIRC the website I mentioned had links to news articles saying the whole area was cordoned off and protected by armed guards who were arresting anyone who violated the perimeter. A lot has certainly been kept under wraps. I don’t think that by any means proves it was shot down, but it does make me suspect that we haven’t been told everything.
. I can imagine this: