John Kerry perpetuates a myth?

In Kerry’s acceptance speech, which I thought was a fine speech otherwise, he seemed to perpetuate the myth that the passengers on flight 93 crashed the plane. The commission report firmly established that there were no passengers in the cockpit at the time. Did I misunderstand the speech, or the report.
Peace,
mangeorge

Well, ever since the commission’s conclusion came at odds with the Grand Misleading about whether or not Bush lied, most anti-Bushies have been trying to pretend it never existed.

“How DARE they agree with what Bush has said this whole time! Clearly, they’ve been bought out!”

I tell ya, it’s like dealing with rabid Fundies…

Are you sure you are talking about the acceptance speech? I found the text here:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,2987610a12,00.html
and I didn’t see anything about flight 93, or Sept 11 for that matter.

Of course, that text could be missing stuff.

Yes, that’s clearly what happened. Kerry ignored the whole report so he could make a one-sentence comment in his speech. Without a doubt that is the most logical explanation.

So in fact, he didn’t say they crashed the plane. What the Commission found, if I remember right, is that the terrorists likely crashed by accident as they shook the plane to try and keep the passengers back. If that’s correct and the passengers did try to retake the plane, I think it’s fair to say they sacrificed themselves.

This is hairsplitting of the most pointless and trivial sort.

The commission reported that the passengers were attacking the cockpit, and though they didn’t quite get to the pilot, he put the plane into a roll that caused the plane to crash. The crash was a direct result of the actions of the passengers in their attempt to overpower the pilot. Even if Kerry had said “they crashed the plane,” it would have been an accurate statement except to anyone who has the smallest and most literal of minds.

Not exactly. What they found is that the terrorists deliberately crashed the plane BEFORE the passengers were able to storm the cockpit. The passengers never made it that far, but the conversations show the pilots trying to disorient them, rolling the plane to shake them up, and finally giving up and saying to each other “Let’s put it down”, and then crashing it.

So, while the passengers did not directly crash the plane, the plane was crashed because of them. They saved the Capitol (1st target, according to Khaild Sheikh Muhammed) or the White House (2nd target). They’re heroes in my book.

Look (in the library, as they charge for it now) at the July 23rd NY Times–there’s an extensive report.

The relevant quotes from the 9/11 Commission Report:

So the point is the actions of the passengers undoubtedly forced the hijackers to abort their mission and prematurely crash before reaching their target. The fact they were not in the cockpit (yet) is irrelevant.

Saying that they sacrificed themselves means that they knowingly and intentionally gave their lives to protect the people in DC. My instinct would have led me, I think, to try and take control of the plane and get it down in one piece. With my ass and the others’ still firmly in place. I suspect that that’s what they were hoping to do.
I’m not trying to minimize the tragedy of their loss. I just don’t need lies to pump up my patriotism. Why conservatives seem to think us “liberals” do is beyond me.
I’ll vote for Kerry because he seems to most closely represent what I want in a leader, in spite of his one seemingly disingenuous remark.
Yes, I was impressed.

But it sounds to me like you’re guessing what they might’ve thought, and then saying Kerry is disingenous based on that. I don’t know what they thought. Probably they wanted to save the plane first, and if that didn’t happen, at least take it down before it reached its target. I think that fits the definition.

No, I don’t know what they thought. That’s exactly why I can’t say they intentionally forced the terrorists to crash the plane. Why would they? They could have overwhelmed the terrorists and taken control of the plane. At least it seems that’s what the terrorists thought was going to happen. Their attitude appears to have been that at least they were able to take out the plane and passengers “for Allah”, and to become martyrs.
Again, I’m not argueing that the passengers were less than honorable. I’m simply saying that I think they did what most people would have done. They fought for their lives. That’s honorable enough for me. Taking control then crashing the plane would have been, well, who would’ve done that? Especially so far out. 20 min, wasn’t it?

I do see your point. In the end, I would say Kerry chose to portray them in a more favorable light, but didn’t perpetuate the myth that they took over and crashed the plane.

They are great heros (the passengers of AA 93 - not Kerry) and gave their life in defense of this country, I wish there are more people like them :frowning:

Their counterattack and attempt to retake the plane resulted in the terrorists realizing they could not hold this plane and they decided to crash it.

Interesting.
Why not Kerry? :confused:

My. Aren’t we optimistic?

Look, they probably did try to take control of the plane. However, in all likelihood, they also knew that they would quite likely die in this attempt. They also probably knew that they would quite likely be forced to crash the plane, if they failed to take it over completely. Any reasonable individual would know that this would have been a likely outcome.

As RealityChuck said, this is hairsplitting to a ridiculous degree.

No, we’re guessing. They may have been optomistic.
They knew that they would quite likely die if they did nothing. Who can know what they hoped.
Which is hairsplitting, asking whether they intentionally crashed the plane or tried to take over? Or asking if Kerry’s statement was disingenuous?

mangeorge, I don’t know about you, but in the situation that the passengers of Flight 93 faced I’d like to think that my first goal would have been to regain control of the plane, but as an acceptable secondary goal would be causing the plane to crash someplace other than the middle of a city. I say I think, because I’m at least as afraid of death as anyone I can think of - I won’t pretend to know exactly how things would work out for me. But, consider, the report of the comission has made it abundantly clear that the passengers knew their options were: Do nothing and die as a terrorist tool - they knew about the attacks on the Pentagon and the Twin Towers; Attack and retack control of the plane, which would have left them with a huge risk of dying, still - stories of having ATC’s talk down people who don’t know how to fly notwithstanding, it’s still a very hazardous operation; Or attack, and force the hijackers to crash the plane someplace where loss of life will be less.

With that set of choices, and recognizing the minimal chance of survival anyways, I think that it is fair to believe that most of those attacking followed similar logic.

honestly, I feel that the term hero means that someone did something heroic. I also think that term is used way to often today.

The only possible heroics of Kerry was his service in Vietnam. But several factors prevent me from giving him a hero status. The 1st of them is he did not volunteer for it, basically he had no choice, so you can’t give him credit for doing something that he was required to do by law. The 2nd is it seems he accelerated his discharge by ensuring him getting the 3 purple hearts, and did so in a very short time and under questionable circumstances. This appears to be more the act of a coward then a hero (I’m not saying he is a coward, just that it seems to me his behavior would seem to fit a cowards action far more then a hero’s).

You asked, I answered.

That’s wrong. He did volunteer for the Navy.

So the Republican attack dogs say, anyhow.

And now that I think about it, not only did he volunteer for the service, he volunteered for a particularly dangerous job and seems to have conducted himself quite well while he was doing it.

kanicbird, the story of Kerry’s actions while commanding a Swift Boat in Vietnam, stories backed up by his crew and others, are out there for your perusal. You really should check them out before you make up your mind about his actions in the face of danger. He risked his life to save others. The republicans don’t have much to say about that side of the man.
Whew.
Had some of the passengers held the terrorists at bay while others grabbed the “stick” and dove the plane into the ground, I’d say yeah, heros. They didn’t get that chance. They apparently tried desperately to wrest control of the plane, but didn’t make it. They weren’t risking anything, you see. The terrorists slammed the plane into the ground. In the “middle of nowhere”.
Yes, kanicbird, we throw the term “heros” around pretty lightly sometimes.