What really happened on Flight 93?

Enter Stage Right - A Journal of Modern Conservatism ^ | October 17, 2001 | Stuart Buck

[maestro]

'Homeland Security' should have as their symbol-seal-and-flag "Flight-93" written on it.
('We WILL defeat your murderous-intent!!'
VICTORY CODE=("93")!!!!
sign-off/on,.. 93
93

[Hatteras]

"...And that it made now strange noises it just came real low like it was going to land and just crashed."

There was also a report early on that an F-16 was on it's tail for seven minutes before the plane crashed as well as debris from the plane discovered up to 8 miles before the crash site leading to speculation that it might have been shot down. More recently, however, I read a report that the F-16 didn't arrive until after it had crashed.

This eyewitness quote also is different from more recent quotes I have seen that suggest the plane rolled over and plunged to the ground.

Personally, I can understand that if the F-16 really did shoot down this plane, in the interest of national unity and lifting American spirits, they decided to go with the "onboard civilian hero aspect" of this tragedy. The wild card, of course, would be the pilot of the F-16 who had been identified in early reports. If he shows up laying in a field somewhere with a gun at his side and a bullet in his head, all bets are off.

I don't know, perhaps, these thoughts are of a mindset leftover from eight long years of the most corrupt administration in the history of these United States...

[motexva]

I'm not a paranoid, conspiracy theory buff.

Translation:

I'm a paranoid, conspiracy theory buff.

[OldFriend]

One of the hijackers claimed to have a bomb tied around his waist. Perhaps he did.

[tallhappy]

There were statements from Stewardesses on some flights that the hijackers had on bombs.

Maybe they did and in this case when the passengers fought back a hijacker set off the bomb.

[DouglasKC]

I am a conspiracy theorist, but in this case there is no need to blame this on a conspiracy.

"He heard some sort of explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane, and we lost contact with him."

If this were actual fact, then the author must be assuming that the plane was shot down by a military plane. If that happened, the plane would have been blown to bits. The guy wouldn't have had time to witness the explosion, run into the bathroom, and make a cell phone call. If he did somehow have time before the plane disintegrated around him, or before he was consumed in a fireball, then he surely would not have been unable to elucidate his thoughts in such a manner. He could not have witnessed an explosion while in the bathroom simply because there are no windows in airplane bathrooms.

If the explosion were due to a terrorist bomb, then there is no reason in the world to cover it up. It makes more sense NOT to cover it up in that case because then there would be no doubt at all that it was the fault of the terrorists.

This doesn't pass the reality test.

[al_c]

The fact is this: the 911 call that one passenger made from a bathroom. On September 11, and for a couple of days afterwards, there were several newspaper stories that mentioned a statement made by Glenn Cramer, a local emergency dispatcher. He said that a passenger on Flight 93 had called 911, with the frantic message that the plane had been hijacked. In Cramer's words, "He heard some sort of explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane, and we lost contact with him."

Now, if this guy was in the bathroom, how could he see "white smoke coming from the plane..."? I don't remember there being any windows in an airplane bathroom.

[Williams]

I know that recent Harvard Graduates can do anything they want (sarcasm) but I find it surprising that a clerk to a sitting federal judge would submit articles to a conservative political site questioning the U.S. Govt., Air Force, FBI, etc. on a matter of national security. Law clerks are usually pretty anonymous during their tenures and this is done to preserve the integrity and non-partiality of the court. All this article does is bounce off the puff of smoke story. I would like to point out that at the moment a missile detonates an airliner, a passenger in the restroom is going to experience a hell ofa lot more than a puff of smoke.

[marcde]

Absolutely, I believe the plane was shot down, definately the right call. I also believe the people on board fought for thier country and thier lives, heroes either way.

[Yo-Yo]

We do know that F-16s were scrambled to intercept this flight, and we also know that Military Fighters are normally forbidden to go supersonic over populated areas, but were supersonic to intercept Flight 93. Supersonic aircraft make sonic booms, which is what witnesses on the ground could have heard.

[Ditto]

I was listening to the radio during the incident and heared multiple people call in from PA stating that they witnessed two low flying jets in the area subsequent to the plane going down.

A controller at Johnstown airport asked other planes in the area to investigate when flight 93 went off his screen. As to no footage, you are wrong. I have seen footage from the crash site several times. Not much to look at. A scar in the ground with bits (tiny bits) of wreakage. Just like US 423 that went down outside Pittsburgh a few years ago, when a plane goes in nose first, there isn't much left to see.

[537 Votes]

We've all read the many stories about the guys on board Flight 93 who heroically decided to fight back -- Todd Beamer, Mark Bingham, Thomas Burnett, Jeremy Glick. I do not question their heroism.

I question the 'heroism' of Mark Bingham, the supposedly gay guy who supposedly participated in the passenger counterattack. I question it because there's a concerted attempt by gays to overshadow the real leader -- Todd Beamer, who happened to be a Christian, and whose heroism has been given testimony by people who heard phone conversations from the doomed flight.

But there is one fact that makes me wonder whether the real reason Flight 93 crashed was because of the heroic struggle of the passengers onboard

Oh God, help us!

If a hijacker enters the cockpit of an airplane and struggles with the pilot, and the pilot accidently hits a lever that causes the plane to crash, there is no question that moral and physical culpability rests with the hijacker. It's utterly pointless to belabor the issue.

I mean, what is the point of debating whether the passengers inadvertently 'caused' the crash? How are they morally responsible? How are they physically responsible? Wasn't the plane going to crash anyway -- like into the White House or the Capitol? Then how are they responsible?

I don't see the point of this article, except that some people are so eager to look for 'hidden meanings' and 'the real story' that they don't pause to ask, "What's the point?"

Just what are we supposed to do? Pass laws against airline passengers stopping suicide bombers? Have flight attendants show a brief film: "In the event of a cockpit struggle, please avoid physical contact with the following control devices."

The writer of this article is just one step away from showing up at the memorial services of the passengers and telling the stricken spouses, "You know, your husband's actions may have caused the plane to crash." I would hope the spouses would do what I would do: Slap the guy silly.

[Paradox]

We do know that F-16s were scrambled to intercept this flight, and we also know that Military Fighters are normally forbidden to go supersonic over populated areas, but were supersonic to intercept Flight 93. Supersonic aircraft make sonic booms, which is what witnesses on the ground could have heard.

Good analysis. Planes also make a boom when they cross under the sound barrier as well. (Thus the well known twin Booms of the space shuttle upon re-entry, one for the nose and the other for the tail). I read that they were closing in, and in that case, would have been slowing down to tag along with the airplane for a while at least. Stands to reason that they had to drop out of warp, so to speak..

[the Wayne]

I can think of two easy explanations that don't involve a shoot-down:

1. The lady who was hanging out the laundry and heard thumps probably heard sonic booms from fighters scrambling to get to the plane. As I remember, the government admitted fighters were close to the plane.

2. I don't know how it works, but I wonder if the heroes who rushed the cockpit might not have shut the engines down. The throttle controls are easy to reach and are pretty easy to recognize if you've ever watched a movie about planes. Maybe either on shutdown or maybe on an attempted restart they backfired?

[uncitizen]

Because it's a theory does that make it bad?

[Paradox]

Babble on.....He raises some points, I for one would like the truth! I read someplace those black boxes were destroyed yet they found a passport, if that doesn't raise an eybrow people are really asleep!

If people don't understand why this would easily be the case, then they must really be comatose!

[Jefferson Adams]

Ummm, is this the same FBI that said that absolutely positively TWA-800's fuel tank exploded? The same FBI that absolutely positively fired not a single shot at Waco? The same FBI whose paid assassin shot an unarmed woman who was holding her baby in her arms in the face?

Yep. I believe whatever they say.

Sad, isn't it.

[Paradox]

Because it's a theory does that make it bad?

Not neccessarily, but it is a BAD THEORY when it is non-falsifiable, that is, when no evidence to the contrary is taken seriously, and is merely brushed off as part of a "cover-up".