adriaticus
Topic Author
Posts: 994
Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 3:29 pm

Flight 93 Crashed W/o Cockpit Struggle?

Sat Jul 24, 2004 12:21 am

A panel concluded the final moments of flight UA 93 on 9/11 came as fighting was taking place outside the cockpit, and upon the hijackers' decision. Mmmm.

http://www.airdisaster.com/news/0704/23/news.shtml

__Ad.
A300/18/19/20/21/30/32/88 An24 ATR42/72 B721/2 B732/3/G/8/MAX B741/2/4 B752 B762/3/4 B772/3 B788/9 Concorde DC8/9/10 E45/70/75/90/95 IL62/86 MD10-30/11 SA340/2000 TU134/154
 
Logos
Posts: 610
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2000 10:47 pm

RE: Flight 93 Crashed W/o Cockpit Struggle?

Sat Jul 24, 2004 12:23 am

Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist or anything, but the debris field (scattered for miles) tends to contradict this account. It would not surprise me in the least if that a/c were actually downed by a missle.

Cheers,
Dave in Orlando
Too many types flown to list
 
SafetyDude
Posts: 3654
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2001 10:02 am

RE: Flight 93 Crashed W/o Cockpit Struggle?

Sat Jul 24, 2004 12:24 am

This has already been posted, both in Civ and non-Avi. The official 9/11 report does make it clear that the terrorists crashed the plane because passengers were trying to take it over. Without the effort of the passengers, we can only imagine what might have happened.

 Crying
-Will
"She Flew For What We Stand For"
 
SafetyDude
Posts: 3654
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2001 10:02 am

RE: Flight 93 Crashed W/o Cockpit Struggle?

Sat Jul 24, 2004 12:25 am

Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist or anything, but the debris field (scattered for miles) tends to contradict this account. It would not surprise me in the least if that a/c were actually downed by a missle.
The cockpit recordings support the theory in the 9/11 report. I imagine if a missile did take the plane down, we would have heard many rumors by now.

-Will  Smile
"She Flew For What We Stand For"
 
ei2ksea
Posts: 441
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 11:17 pm

RE: Flight 93 Crashed W/o Cockpit Struggle?

Sat Jul 24, 2004 12:28 am

RIP

By the way, I called out to the field in PA where it all unfolded, last summer. You get a strange feeling when you think about all that went on that day. The NPS have plans to make some form of memorial there in the future.

http://www.nps.gov/flni/

Regards
P
Next Flight: EWR-SEA (AS), SEA-EWR (UA), EWR-SEA-EWR (UA)
 
adriaticus
Topic Author
Posts: 994
Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 3:29 pm

RE: Flight 93 Crashed W/o Cockpit Struggle?

Sat Jul 24, 2004 1:07 am

SafetyDude: could you provide some links? Before posting I did research by "Flight 93", "UA 93", and other hits, and got no response... sometimes that happens on this server...

Thanks,
__Ad.
A300/18/19/20/21/30/32/88 An24 ATR42/72 B721/2 B732/3/G/8/MAX B741/2/4 B752 B762/3/4 B772/3 B788/9 Concorde DC8/9/10 E45/70/75/90/95 IL62/86 MD10-30/11 SA340/2000 TU134/154
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: Flight 93 Crashed W/o Cockpit Struggle?

Sat Jul 24, 2004 1:11 am

Logos you wrote "Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist or anything, but the debris field (scattered for miles) tends to contradict this account. It would not surprise me in the least if that a/c were actually downed by a missle."

Sorry but that comment makes you sound exactly like a conspiracy theorist. Theorist, in that it is markedly devoid of fact. The fact is, the debris was remarkably concentrated with a few pieces found at some distance. While I cannot explain the items found away from the main crash site, they are in no way consistent with a plane having been shot down at high altitude and speed. This crap has been around from day one, spread by people who do not have any idea what they are talking about.

While I have no doubt that fighters were doing the speed of heat to get there to shoot it down they did not get there in time to do so.

It was not shot down.

Sorry.

If the plane had been hit at high altitude and speed with a missile, and the hit was sufficient to bring it down, the plane would have virtually disintegrated once the skin was breached, and during the descent. There would not be one acre of land along the track from point of shootdown to some distance past the main crater that would not have thousands of pieces of airplane and passenger strewn everywhere.

I have walked the ground under places where smaller, slower planes have had midair collisions. The debris is everywhere and pieces down to rivets will litter the ground there forever. There is so much tiny debris that it is simply impossible to pick it all up. It simply could not be hidden. It would have landed on people and cars and highways.

I can go out to a place near my house, where a midair collision happened in 1944 and I can still pick up pieces everywhere. It is found in a large cone from the point of collision to the shallow impact crafters of the two planes, and beyond. Metal will be there for a thousand years, even though the military "picked it all up" after the investigation.

Now, when a pressurized plane (even at zero delta-P) strikes the ground at high speed, it pops like a paper bag. (Sorry to be so graphic but I feel it is more respectful to the victims of this tragedy, and to their families to try and debunk the liars and fools who perpetuate this kind of thing.) This will scatter light debris around, even when most of the mass goes straight into the ground. Also, some heavier, denser objects will rebound and land at some distance away. That does not mean that they departed the aircraft before it struck the ground.

The Government does not need to lie about this. They have the legal right, indeed the obligation to shoot down an airliner full of innocent people if it will actually reduce the number of casualties. This certainly have been the case.

So the next time some uninformed person tells you it was shot down, please tell them what they need to know - that they are full of crap. And the websites that spread this stuff are full of more holes than a ton of Swiss cheese.

If you wish to rebut my opinions here, please feel free, but be advised that I can support my observations with some authority. Further, I could have gone on for pages with many other arguments. I have publicly debunked this garbage in other venues, and was very brief here so as to not waste bandwidth on an undeserving topic.

If I may take liberties with your signature: The unexamined accusation is not worth repeating.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
Dirkou
Posts: 372
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 2:57 am

RE: Flight 93 Crashed W/o Cockpit Struggle?

Sat Jul 24, 2004 1:21 am

There are many strange things going on in the US when it comes to national security...TWA800 was it really a fuel problem or a missile? Strange such a problem that never happened to any othe B747 happened just 2 or 3 close to the Atlanta Olympics...

Flight 93...again the same...it is really strange the terrorists crashed the plane with debris all over the place...

Anyway is seems the government prefers to lie to maintain "public order" and due to the high patriotism of this great country, everyone wants (forces) to believe in the lie...

Just my 2 cents.
 
ua777222
Posts: 2987
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 11:23 am

RE: Flight 93 Crashed W/o Cockpit Struggle?

Sat Jul 24, 2004 1:21 am

Who the hell cares what happened to the a/c and why it went down. You're missing the point. Innocent people were killed for being American. The a/c could have landed and then taxied to a TacoBell to pick up a last minute snack for all we know.

When the cockpit voice recorders were released a mother who lives in the Bay Area (can't think of her last name, son helped take over or try to take over) came out after hearing them and said she heard her son's voice before it crashed. If anything at all the pax where the main reason the a/c crashed. Who did it is still a bit unsure.

R.I.P.

UA777222
"It wasn't raining when Noah built the ark."
 
Dirkou
Posts: 372
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 2:57 am

RE: Flight 93 Crashed W/o Cockpit Struggle?

Sat Jul 24, 2004 1:24 am

"Who the hell cares what happened to the a/c and why it went down."

Of course anyone cares to know if our vice-preseident ordered a figher to shot a civilian aircraft.
 
SafetyDude
Posts: 3654
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2001 10:02 am

RE: Flight 93 Crashed W/o Cockpit Struggle?

Sat Jul 24, 2004 1:31 am

Of course anyone cares to know if our vice-preseident ordered a figher to shot a civilian aircraft.
I believe he was in the hospital.  Big grin

Seriously, though, if something did happen to the aircraft (as in it was shot down), we would have heard about it earlier.

 Smile
-Will
"She Flew For What We Stand For"
 
22right
Posts: 393
Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 2:41 am

RE: Flight 93 Crashed W/o Cockpit Struggle?

Sat Jul 24, 2004 1:39 am

Dirkou wrote:

Of course anyone cares to know if our vice-preseident ordered a figher to shot a civilian aircraft.

I believe it is a matter of record that the Vice-President (who was in the White House situation room and essentially in charge of the situation that fateful morning) did in fact issue orders to shoot down any civilian aircraft that wouldn't respond to ATC directions.

However, based on the all evidence gathered so far, fighters were not within range of UA 93 and that aircraft was intentionally crashed into the field in PA by terrorists due to the brave actions of the passengers.

Whether or not passengers entered the cockpit is completely moot. The net result would have been the same regardless of whether they gained entry to the cockpit.
"I never apologize! I am sorry, but that's the way it is!" - Homer Simpson
 
Dirkou
Posts: 372
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 2:57 am

RE: Flight 93 Crashed W/o Cockpit Struggle?

Sat Jul 24, 2004 1:41 am

"based on the all evidence gathered so far"

Where are the sources? The government?
 
PHLBOS
Posts: 6520
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 6:38 am

RE: Flight 93 Crashed W/o Cockpit Struggle?

Sat Jul 24, 2004 1:43 am

The only thing these findings prove is that the terrorists had a 'Plan B' up their sleeve in the event of passenger interference/disruption. The 'Plan B' was to abort the mission, and hence, crash the plane. It's quite possible that at the moment Todd Beamer and company plowed through the cockpit door with the snack cart or at least attempted to do such, the terrorists immediately steered the plane downwards.

[Edited 2004-07-23 18:46:43]
"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
 
SegmentKing
Posts: 3224
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2000 7:16 am

RE: Flight 93 Crashed W/o Cockpit Struggle?

Sat Jul 24, 2004 1:52 am

If a Boeing 757 is shot down at any altitude, we would have debris scattered over miles, not in a little section of land which is where it ended up.

TWA's debris was found in 20 square miles of water, and UA 93's main debris was found in about 2 acres of land... big difference.

-n
~ ~ ~ ~ pRoFeSsIoNaL hUrRiCaNe DoDgEr ~ ~ ~ ~
 
James768
Posts: 110
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2000 11:26 am

RE: Flight 93 Crashed W/o Cockpit Struggle?

Sat Jul 24, 2004 1:55 am

And what if it was shot down? Would anyone here say that to have shot it down would have been a bad decision? In fact wouldn't the government trumpet the fact - that it had saved the lifes of thousands of people? Indeed wouldn't a shootdown actually deter a future event - even with no warning the air defence system in 2001 was efficient enough to chase a rogue plane and shoot it down before it could do any damage...Meaning a similar event now was less likely to succeed...

It's either a very elaborate lie or the the plain and simple truth. The fact is there was no conspiracy, the plane was flown into the ground by the hijackers because of the heroism of the passengers on board. Their actions saved thousands. RIP
 
jtdieffen
Posts: 115
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 2:46 pm

RE: Flight 93 Crashed W/o Cockpit Struggle?

Sat Jul 24, 2004 1:56 am

Just a quick note for everyone who thinks the debris was all over the place:
The debris was concentrated in such a small area that one would find it hard to believe that a whole plane could be found there. If you look at the photos of the site, you can clearly make out the shape of the plane, wings and all, from it's velocitous crash into the ground. Having been to Shanksville twice, once immediately falling the crash (as a member of the Boston Globe staff), I can assure you that there was not "debris everywhere." A few miscellaneous pieces were found elsewhere, which were most likely dislodged from the plane as it hurtled earthward at nearly 600 mph. No one in the area reported seeing/hearing fighters either. And yes, the debris would've been strewn for miles had it been shot down. I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade, but there is zero evidence that supports the missile theory.

Cheers,
Dief
Regards! JDief
 
Dirkou
Posts: 372
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 2:57 am

RE: Flight 93 Crashed W/o Cockpit Struggle?

Sat Jul 24, 2004 2:39 am

Ok guys. I always though the debris was over a 5 to 15 mile radius.
 
Evergreen
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 2:59 am

RE: Flight 93 Crashed W/o Cockpit Struggle?

Sat Jul 24, 2004 3:19 am

A story in our BTV local paper a year ago recounted training sessions for Vermont Air Guard pilots for their patrols over New York City in the weeks after 9/11. Aviators stunned into silence at the discussion of pax jets as targets. Each said it was sad and spooky to consider, but each also considered the consequences of failing to pull the trigger (the major consequence being another large, newly-empty space over an American city).

If fighters had reached Flight 93 in time to intercept it and bring it down, we would have heard all about it in a matter of days. And, as previously addressed, there would be pieces of airplane bubbling out of the ground for miles around even today.

What the conspiracy theorists, Illuminati-watchers and black helicopter crowd all fail to accept is that conspiracies (and secret societies) are assembled by people, and people as a group of any size find it impossible to keep a secret.
 
burg400
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 2:59 am

RE: Flight 93 Crashed W/o Cockpit Struggle?

Sat Jul 24, 2004 3:31 am

I agree with James768
I feel that under the circumstances, with pax starting to get the upper hand that it was inevitable that a committed terrorist was going to take everyone with him. I feel it got to the point when whoever was controlling the aircraft had the made a decision that he was going to be overpowered sooner rather than later and decided to end it rather than face justice (be it lawful or Mob).
Whatever happened we should hold those passengers in high regard for attempting to regain control and due to their actions saving countless other lives.
Personally I no idea what I would do in such a situation, I know how I'd like to react.
Golf " A good walk Wasted" not the way I play
 
AA7573E
Posts: 468
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 11:34 am

RE: Flight 93 Crashed W/o Cockpit Struggle?

Sat Jul 24, 2004 7:02 am

@ Dirkou

You seem to be poking around to start a fight. A word of advice, take it or leave it, read beyond the headline, and get some facts before you starting making wild accusations.

The VP did in fact issue orders to shoot down any planes not responding to ATC. That is part of the public record. No planes were shot down. That too is a matter of public record. No military aircraft were able to get to the plane before it went down. Had they of reached it, they would of been duty bound to shoot it down.

Why you are distorting these facts is beyond comprehension. There is nothing to argue about here. It simply did not happen, and no amount of distrust or theorizing on your part will ever be able to change that. Move on, like the rest of the country / world is trying to, and remember the people that were lost in a horrid tragedy, and don't make false accusations about what did or did not happen. What are you trying to prove?




See you up front!
 
Blackbird1331
Posts: 1741
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 10:47 am

RE: Flight 93 Crashed W/o Cockpit Struggle?

Sat Jul 24, 2004 7:49 am

I did not realize how much hatred had built up inside me until I saw the newscast last night on CBS2 nightly news. As the passengers aboard Flight93 had knowledge of the twin tower attacts, I must guess that they were even more focused and enraged by the actions of the hijackers. The cowards in the cockpit knew they were dogmeat so they took the easy way out. How cowardly scum could be accepted into heaven is beyond my comprehension. The acts of the good souls aboard UA93 is more worthy of acceptance.
Cameras shoot pictures. Guns shoot people. They have the guns.
 
EnoreFilho
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 10:01 am

RE: Flight 93 Crashed W/o Cockpit Struggle?

Sat Jul 24, 2004 8:08 am

Hello,

For me, this plane was shot down. Just because when the missile hit the plane, it is right in the engine h(e follows the warmer part of the plane), and not the fuselage. When this happen, the plane lost all hydraulic, and becomes out of control. Then he comes straight down, just leaving small parts far away, then falling in one peace.
Member of the all mighty Canudos Air Force!!!!
 
bristolflyer
Posts: 2103
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 1:35 am

RE: Flight 93 Crashed W/o Cockpit Struggle?

Sat Jul 24, 2004 8:21 am

This thread will run and run forever. And it will become no more or less credible with every response. You believe what you want to believe according to the reports you read. I have my beliefs about what happened and to try and convince anyone is pretty fruitless in my mind.

A lot of people have a lot of theories and facts that they base their beliefs upon; well that's fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

So is there any point in carrying on the discussion?

BF
Fortune favours the brave
 
Blackbird1331
Posts: 1741
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 10:47 am

RE: Flight 93 Crashed W/o Cockpit Struggle?

Sat Jul 24, 2004 8:41 am

It is akin to a point-of-law. You open discussion to a topic, then you must listen to all discussions that follow pertaining to that topic. The forum is not a court of law, though the crew do act as judges. It is simply a matter of, "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen."
Cameras shoot pictures. Guns shoot people. They have the guns.
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: Flight 93 Crashed W/o Cockpit Struggle?

Sat Jul 24, 2004 10:15 am

Another one? EnoreFilho what in the hell are you talking about? Are you saying that if a plane loses the hydraulic output of one engine it will go out of control and plunge straight down? Nonsense.

Airliners lose an engine pretty much every week, worldwide. Occasionally they lose ALL engines. (A-330 into Lajes, BA 747 after volcanic ash encounter, Canadian 767 etc. etc.) If we crashed when we lost an engine I'd have been dead since 1967, and five times since!

I see by your profile that you are a student. Good. Keep studying. It is obvious that you need more knowledge.

Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
adriaticus
Topic Author
Posts: 994
Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 3:29 pm

RE: Flight 93 Crashed W/o Cockpit Struggle?

Sat Jul 24, 2004 11:00 am

SlamClick; your posts are witty and you obviously command a lot of knowledge... But what if our Brazlian friend is right? Please do tell (I am not challenging you, but asking, since you have seemingly lost engines five times in almost 40 yrs) What if missiles (obviously they wouldn't take chances), shot the two engines? Would there still be hydraulics (and electric, for that matter)?. Would the APU be enough to make the a/c remain under control?

On the other hand, by applying Okham's razor, I tend to agree with all the ones who think the terrorists simply felt lost, realized they would never make their objective, and thus resorted to destroying the a/c before pax could take control of it. They were suicidal anyway. Period.

One more thing... I don't agree with the guy who claims the pax were killed "just because they were Americans". That's shortsighted and way too candid. This whole issue has roots a lot deeper and complex than most people seem to realize. What's more, such a statement constitutes a very dangerous prejudice that can easily become a justification for an equally reidiculous retaliation.

AND... Yet one more thing. "Americans", whether anybody likes it or not, are all of us who live and share the whole continent, from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego. Yep, Argentinos, Peruanos, Mexicanos, Canadians, and the people living in the U.S.A. are all, by our own right, "americanos". Got it? (That's what happens when people fell asleep in Geography 101 or haven't read "Sociology for Dummies" Insane)

__Ad.
A300/18/19/20/21/30/32/88 An24 ATR42/72 B721/2 B732/3/G/8/MAX B741/2/4 B752 B762/3/4 B772/3 B788/9 Concorde DC8/9/10 E45/70/75/90/95 IL62/86 MD10-30/11 SA340/2000 TU134/154
 
miamix707
Posts: 3848
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 2:22 pm

RE: Flight 93 Crashed W/o Cockpit Struggle?

Sat Jul 24, 2004 11:51 am

The recordings speak for themselves, pilot starts to praise allah after talking to the other ignorant islamic nut , agreeing with each other it's time to put the plane down. The government would love to take "pride" in its defense mechanism by saying they shot a missile into the engines to bring it down. Assuming there weren't any recordings of the hijackers in the cockpit, information would have leaked out already had it actually been "shot down".

TWA 800 is another story, even though they said fuel tank vapors and faulty wiring insulation for the pumps etc etc. nobody is 100% sure what really happened. Conspiracy theorists and those who like to spit out opinions just for the sake of saying something, would look more knowledgeable arguing about this one.
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: Flight 93 Crashed W/o Cockpit Struggle?

Sat Jul 24, 2004 11:57 am

Adriaticus my comments were not in any way tied to what did happen to Flight 93. I only addressed what could not have happened. That is that it was shot down by missile or gunfire. Could not have happened.

I did not say it would not have happened. The fighters were busting mach to get there to shoot it down. But they were too late. I don't know and, for the purpose of this discussion, don't care what did happen. I speak only to what did not.

You guys are aware that missiles EXPLODE, right? You are probably also aware that if you fired a bunch of large caliber (20 or 30 MM) bullets into a jet engine at high RPM it would explode. Right? Well guess what! No explosion.

Didn't happen. So unless the conspiracy nuts can invent some new kind of missile that reaches into the cockpit and shuts the engines down peacefully, no weapon of any type got to that airplane.

Air-to-air weapons bring down other planes by causing a lot of damage to them. Heat seeking missiles fly up the exhaust plume or other types use whatever guidance and the get in close and they explode and they bring about major structural failure and fire. Guns do pretty much the same thing, causing engines to fail and that means disk rupture in jet engines. It also means fuel tank penetration and jet-A being vaporized into the air. That all means fire.

Now if we assume that they had descended some (this to make your argument more workable) let us say down to about 20,000' before they were hit. That means that the point where the missile hit them would have been visible to about three hundred thousand square miles of Pennsylvania, Maryland and West Virginia.

Do you have any idea how many people live in those three hundred thousand square miles? Do you have any idea how many paranoid-delusional, Government-hating, Arab-hating, 15-minutes-of-fame-lusting, video camera owning people live out there?

And not one got a picture. Not one of them got one second of video of an airliner going down in flames. Odd don't you think? Because you could hear a missile being fired, and you could sure as hell hear one exploding from the ground. And the day was famously clear. No one got a picture. And anyone having such video would make two year's wages selling it to the news media and no one came forward.

Odd, don't you think? Since both planes were caught hitting the two twin towers, and those were the first events of the day. Both of them caught on video. The one that hit the Pentagon got caught on the parking lot security camera. Odd because when the PSA 727 had a midair collision over San Diego it crashed only a few seconds later, but someone got a picture of it going down in flames. But no one captures this one.

Now I'm pretty sure you have never seen a plane shot down. I have. I have also seen inflight structural failures and midair collisions. I am not protecting anyone here. Hell, I am an active airline pilot myself and launch myself every day knowing that the Air Force might have to shoot me down. But I will tell you for certain sure that no one shot that particular plane down.

Did not happen.

As I alluded earlier, I could go on for at least ten thousand words on the subject. I could write a book on the differences between that crash site and a shootdown crash site. I am not going to bother.

One last thing. Go back and read my first post again. I make reference to planes having survived after losing all engines. Google it:
"A-330 lajes"
"Gimli Glider"
"Volcanic ash, BA 747"

Losing engines, even ALL engines does not necessarily make the airplane crash. In the US Army, loss of an engine is NEVER the cause of a crash even in a single engine airplane. (Flying to a place where no forced landing is possible might be.) Loss of hydraulics does not cause a plane to go out of control and dive straight into the ground.

All aircraft with a US type certificate will have "positive dynamic stability" which means they want to fly along just like they are. They have to be perturbed out of stable flight by an application of flight controls. This takes human intervention.

As the last two paragraphs do not really pertain to me, I will not comment on them.

Slam
otro mas Americano
Click

Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
Tasha
Posts: 537
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 2:34 pm

RE: Flight 93 Crashed W/o Cockpit Struggle?

Sat Jul 24, 2004 1:01 pm

"The only thing these findings prove is that the terrorists had a 'Plan B' up their sleeve in the event of passenger interference/disruption."

Ohhh no, I think you are completely wrong. These hideous, spineless, fanatical cowards certainly didn't have "plan B". What they did was sheer desperation, because if they had a "plan B" it would have been a gas station, house, or anything else but a field. They thought that the passengers would sit still, being "cowardly Americans". "Cowardly Americans", as the Taliban guy Omar calls Americans... "who will never come here (Afghanistan)" I think was the direct quote. I would love to have seen his face when B-1s started dropping bombs on his head.

The Taliban leader Omar in Afghanistan, and his terrorist friends On flight 93 made a common mistake, they took American kindness and gentleness for utter weakness. I think that the Muslim (I hate to use that word, but it is fitting) - fanatical Muslim terrorists of today learned seemingly valuable lessons in 1970's Europe from the terrorists (Bader-Meinhoff gang, Red October Faction, etc) of the day. They learned that Europeans will negotiate with them; pay them off; do what ever they want.. just so they don't suffer another terror attack. Funny thing, I have found in my travels that most non-Americans see the United States as primarily sort-of a European country by proxy. This viewpoint is totally false. This too, in my opinion, is the belief of these spineless terrorists.

The Madrid bombings may also serve as a model for upcoming attacks to disrupt U.S. elections. Unfortunately for the terrorists, unlike the Spaniards - a terror attack will not break U.S. resolve, but seriously strengthen it. All it will do is severely piss-off the American people and they will send: more troops, more aircraft, and more laser-guided weapons to come crushing down on terrorist heads in the Middle East. Funny - these people called this Jihad; this holy war... that isn't going so well now. I guess Allah isn't on their side after all.

Tasha  Smile/happy/getting dizzy





[Edited 2004-07-24 06:03:07]

[Edited 2004-07-24 06:04:37]
 
F9Fan
Posts: 531
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2004 2:42 pm

RE: Flight 93 Crashed W/o Cockpit Struggle?

Sat Jul 24, 2004 2:35 pm

In the just released 9/11 Commission Report, they include transcripts from the cockpit voice recorder. Based on released transcripts of communications between the FAA, NORAD and other DoD agencies, there was mass confusion as to the status of UA 93. The plane was hijacked at 9:27 am. At 9:36 am, Cleveland Center requested military assistance. This action was still being debated at FAA headquarters at 9:49 am when, "everybody just left the room." The FAA formally requested military aircraft at 9:53 am. The passenger assault on UA 93 began at 9:57 am, at 9:58:57 am, the hijacker began to rock the wings left and right, and began pitching the nose of the plane up and down at 9:59:52 am. He stabilized the aircraft at 10:01:00 am, but decided to crash the aircraft after another hijacker determined that the passenger's assault would be successful. The assault continued at 10:02:23, and the plane crashed at 10:03:11 am, with the aircraft traveling at 580 mph. At 10:07 am, Northeast Air Defense Sector military commanders asked the FAA about UA 93. The FAA advised NEADS that UA 93 was down. NEADS asked, "when did he land?" The FAA responded, "he did not land." However, the crash of UA 93 was not immediately relayed to the White House where Vice President Cheney ordered the shooting down of UA 93 between 10:10 am and 10:15 am, and the order was transmitted to the pilots over DC four minutes later. However, there was only one set of F-16s over Washington, DC at the time, and they did not know the type of aircraft, nor the airline they were looking for.

You can get full details of the report at http://www.9-11commission.gov. The full report is available in PDF format, with exact details of what happened on the planes contained in chapter 1. You can also purchase a copy at most major bookstores, and through the Government Printing Office. Amazon.com is also selling the book for $8.00 plus shipping.

F9Fan
 
thunder9
Posts: 175
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2003 8:02 am

RE: Flight 93 Crashed W/o Cockpit Struggle?

Sat Jul 24, 2004 3:18 pm

For those that are arguing that a missile shot down UA93...

A missile used to down a commercial airliner wouldn't necessarily follow the heat signature of the engines, as an IR (heat-seeking) missile would not have been selected. The F-16 pilots would have chosen to use radar guided AIM-120 AMRAAMs for two reasons.

1) It's radar guided, and the size of any commercial airframe makes one very inviting target for such a weapon.

2) The range is much greater. The AMRAAM has an effective operational range of approximately 25 miles, where the AIM-9M Sidewinder (IR guidance) has a range of only about 10 miles.

So it stands to reason that the easier "lock-on" capability from long range and the earlier weapons deployment time makes AMRAAM the most logical choice. Obviously, this missile doesn't care if it hits the engine, or any other part of the target. It tracks until it either hits the target, or until the missile realizes that a miss has occurred, at which time the missile explodes, attempting to inflict damage from within a lethal proximity. I'm quite sure that, given the urgency of events, had an actual shootdown been required, more than one missile would have been fired to ensure a successful intercept.

-J


"Keep thy airspeed up, less the earth come from below and smite thee." - William Kershner
 
cessnalady
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 7:12 am

RE: Flight 93 Crashed W/o Cockpit Struggle?

Sat Jul 24, 2004 3:20 pm

F9F fan: excellent post and references; finally someone is talking solid facts. You are going to my RUL!

SlamClick: thanks for the explanation. So, in the end, the answer to Adriaticus was, "yes, that a/c can fly after having lost the two engines". All aircraft with a US type certificate will have "positive dynamic stability" which means they want to fly along just like they are.. Wow... I didn't know that about US-certified planes. Makes me feel a lot more secure when at the controls of our little Cessna...

...Unfortunately for the terrorists, unlike the Spaniards - a terror attack will not break U.S. resolve, but seriously strengthen it. All it will do is severely piss-off the American people and they will send: more troops, more aircraft, and more laser-guided weapons to come crushing down on terrorist heads in the Middle East. ... [ ] ... I guess Allah isn't on their side after all.

Tasha, you are sounding as fanatic and narrowminded as them hard-liners. Scary. It takes two to tango. Granted, if whoever is making the decisions thinks like you write, this nightmare will become a never-ending story... (did you know the quarrels between the forebears of modern-day Palestinians and Israelis have been going on for about 4,500 years?)

Marie
 
miamix707
Posts: 3848
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 2:22 pm

RE: Flight 93 Crashed W/o Cockpit Struggle?

Sat Jul 24, 2004 3:32 pm

guess Allah isn't on their side after all

You would think they would have learned this fact from history already. Everytime they try to destroy tiny Israel they fail. Taliban, Sharia Law, how could Allah really want people to be miserable and be stuck in the middle ages forever?

I read there was a soccer stadium built in Afghanistan and the Taliban used it for public executions. Asked why not use it for soccer the Taliban answered, "build us another one, and we'll use it for soccer"
 
transPac
Posts: 108
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 12:59 pm

RE: Flight 93 Crashed W/o Cockpit Struggle?

Sat Jul 24, 2004 3:55 pm

Great points, SlamClick. I'd add you to my respected users list if it didn't drag it down hahaha. People love to pick on the government over stuff like this and the Bush administration being relatively hamfisted as it is, makes it even more tempting for some people. Doesn't change the facts though, and its good the some people have sense enough to use them on here. Oh and Tasha, while I'm sure I agree with you on many points, do please lay off the rhetoric as it just distorts what you are trying to say. Nobody with any knowledge of world history could take such a reactionary view. While nothing justifies taking innocent lives, you can't ignore the cause and effect relationship of Western foreign policy dating back to ummm...the crusades? But anyway, thats not aviation related, at least not directly so I'll leave it at that. I'll just close in saying that if you feel so strongly about these issues, why don't you enlist and join the war on terror? Take a tour of duty in Baghdad and maybe you'll see just how complicated things are.
 
Tasha
Posts: 537
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 2:34 pm

RE: Flight 93 Crashed W/o Cockpit Struggle?

Sat Jul 24, 2004 3:58 pm

Marie,

"(did you know the quarrels between the forebears of modern-day Palestinians and Israelis have been going on for about 4,500 years?)"

Yes I do. But look at what is happening there....

In 1967 and 1973 the Arabs ganged up on tiny Israel and were soundly defeated although they had huge advantages. The Israelis know that you cannot give into these barbarians as the Europeans have done for some time. Perhaps it's time for all to take a lesson from that.

As far as being a fanatic: If being a fanatic is love of god, country, and certain freedoms - like not wanting to live under Islamic tyranny, well you've got me: I'm a fanatic

Tasha  Smile/happy/getting dizzy
 
miamix707
Posts: 3848
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 2:22 pm

RE: Flight 93 Crashed W/o Cockpit Struggle?

Sat Jul 24, 2004 3:58 pm

sorry cessnalady, I'd have to agree with Tasha on that one. In no way does she sound fannatical, even if her wording sounds exaggerated to you, that's what will happen. What she was trying to say is, the more the terrorists want to inflict damage in the West, at the end they end up hurting themselves even more and the citizens of their own countries.

Unfortunately for Spain, with a large Arab minority and widespread anti-US and anti-Israel views, the attacks had an effect on the elections to the point they elected a socialist when Aznar had done his job well and Spain was enjoying prosperity as a nation. His only fault was to back the US. The only victory there was for the terrorists, they changed the outcome of a nation's election.
 
Tasha
Posts: 537
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 2:34 pm

RE: Flight 93 Crashed W/o Cockpit Struggle?

Sat Jul 24, 2004 4:04 pm

Transpac:

"why don't you enlist and join the war on terror"

That's interesting.... I'm with the Mississippi National Guard, I joined almost four years ago right after high school.

But thanks for asking

Tasha  Smile/happy/getting dizzy
 
cessnalady
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 7:12 am

RE: Flight 93 Crashed W/o Cockpit Struggle?

Sat Jul 24, 2004 4:49 pm

With reference to the original posting... I agree with those who defend Flight 93 went down and crashed in one piece. A MX B722 suffered a mid-air explosion (an overheated tire exploded inside the undercarriage well) in the mid-80's over Maravatio, Mexico. Many witnesses saw it come down mostly in one piece... And the locals keep on finding scattered debris to this day... Same with the DHL/Bashkirian mid-air collision over Ueberlingen two years ago... I recall the final report issues by the Swiss aviation authority (whot took blame on the cause) states the debris was scattered in an area of about 6 square kilometers... (like 12 acres?)

Miamix707... the more the terrorists want to inflict damage in the West, at the end they end up hurting themselves even more and the citizens of their own countries.

Well, yes, Miamix; that is exactly like the first half half of what I am trying to convey. Please do try reading it this way: "the more the terrorists want to inflict damage in the West, at the end they end up hurting themselves even more and the citizens of their own countries; the more the West wants to inflict damage in the Middle East, at the end they end up hurting themselves even more and the citizens of their own countries." BTW, thanks for the wording, it was quite helpful to allow me better explain myself. English is not my mother tongue, you know?

Bottomline: it takes two to tango. We westerners keep on doing our part on this, it'll be a never-ending story.

As for Spain, the elections, and love of country and several other items... Nah, I won't fall into discussing those (very interesting) issues. at least not in this forum.

Transpac... Oh and Tasha, while I'm sure I agree with you on many points, do please lay off the rhetoric as it just distorts what you are trying to say. Nobody with any knowledge of world history could take such a reactionary view. While nothing justifies taking innocent lives, you can't ignore the cause and effect relationship of Western foreign policy dating back to ummm...the crusades? Couln't have said it better myself... What goes around comes around... Thanks for the great wording suggestion too!

Marie
 
miamix707
Posts: 3848
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 2:22 pm

RE: Flight 93 Crashed W/o Cockpit Struggle?

Sat Jul 24, 2004 6:18 pm

Marie, you are Mexican, so I totally understand why you feel that way.. California, Nevada, Colorado etc.. you know what I mean. But times change and you gotta learn to forget, forgive and move on. Mexican inmigrants aren't hijacking airliners and blowing up buildings or American interests overseas, Japan isn't try to nuke us, they are now an ally. The West isn't trying to destroy the Middle East, the rogue, undemocratic "governments" of that region are doing that themselves. First thing that happened after they Saddam was overthrown, they started bringing in the necessary food and supplies these people had never had. Iraq would be prospering right now as we speak if it wasn't for the daily bombings by insurgents that are killing their own fellow Iraqis. Those are not human beings, but barbarians and in fact, the US is being too leniant for fear of critiscism from other nations, and in the process are losing young people over there by the day.

Not even the US, but Israel itself gave millions to the Palestinians, what did they do with that money? .. no schools to show for it, no social improvents whatsoever. Only weapons. In the case of terrorism you can't turn a blind eye and pretend it'll go away. It will come back to hurt you. Clinton sided with the muslims in the Balkans (when the local people wanted to get rid of them), invited Yasser Arafat (who is a terrorist), allowed many Arabs to freely come to the US while tightening the restrictions on other inmigrants namely people from Mexico, Cuba and the rest of Latin America. At the end, that didn't help us any. In modern history there hasn't been any other group of people except muslim extremists who would hijack 4 airplanes and kill so many people in the name of their cause.
 
spacecadet
Posts: 3536
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 3:36 am

RE: Flight 93 Crashed W/o Cockpit Struggle?

Sat Jul 24, 2004 6:28 pm

2) The range is much greater. The AMRAAM has an effective operational range of approximately 25 miles, where the AIM-9M Sidewinder (IR guidance) has a range of only about 10 miles.

And that's exactly why an AMRAAM would not have been used.

It's procedure in these sorts of cases (including situations where fighters have intercepted jetliners since 9/11) to get a visual confirmation of the target before firing. An F-16 will be able to identify a target and maybe even the type of plane it is (especially if receiving radar data from AWACS) but with as many 757's in the air at that time there is no way anybody is going to be shooting down anybody else without a visual confirmation that this was the 757 they wanted to hit. Which means being a lot closer than 25 miles - more like 25 feet.

As these F-16's approached they would have attempted radio contact, then flashed their warning beacons from off to the side of the cockpit, then finally would have fired warning shots. As a last resort they would have fired their missiles from fairly close range, with a visual on the aircraft as well as a visual on the area where they thought the plane would come down. At close range AIM-9's are much more accurate than AIM-120's (they are lighter and more maneuverable) so that is what would have been used.

If you think this would have taken too long to accomplish, consider the fact that you're asking a pilot to shoot down a domestic civilian airliner packed with US citizens. Shoot down the wrong plane from 25-30 miles away and you've just killed perhaps hundreds of innocent people and you've still got a hijacked plane out there. You also may have just crashed a plane into a skyscraper yourself for all you know, because you didn't see the plane or the surrounding area on the ground. This is not something that would have been done lightly; standard international procedures would have been followed.

Anyway, when I read the first post in this thread about the missile theory I actually thought it was a joke. After the first few replies I was thinking "man, these people are taking this guy way too seriously". Once I realized it was no joke, I almost couldn't believe it. People can apparently believe almost any plane crash is caused by a missile strike, I guess.

(I love the comments from people who don't believe the evidence because it's presented by "the government" - I have news for you people, "the government" is who investigates every plane crash, and there are a whole lot of other crashes that fit the profile of a missile strike more than this one. But none of them were missile strikes either, because planes can crash themselves in a whole lot of ways without any outside help, and sometimes it's even because the people at the controls decide to put the damn thing in the ground.)

The people on that plane are heroes whether they got into the cockpit or not. But I believe that they didn't, after reading the 9/11 report.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
 
F9Fan
Posts: 531
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2004 2:42 pm

RE: Flight 93 Crashed W/o Cockpit Struggle?

Sat Jul 24, 2004 11:28 pm

There are examples where the military shot down commercial airliners. KE 007 was shot down in 1981 (I think) over Soviet airspace. The cockpit voice recorders survived the incident. The Soviet fighter fired a heat seeking missile into the engine of the 747. The airframe was intact as it crashed into the ocean. In that case, we can see that a missile strike on a commercial airliner wouldn't necessarily destroy the airframe, especially if they used a heat seeking missile and it struck the engine.

F9Fan
 
elwood64151
Posts: 2410
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2002 10:22 am

RE: Flight 93 Crashed W/o Cockpit Struggle?

Sun Jul 25, 2004 1:04 am

Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist or anything, but the debris field (scattered for miles)

An aircraft crashing into the ground at 500 miles an hour wouldn't have debris flying for many miles? C'mon!!!

Anyway is seems the government prefers to lie to maintain "public order" and due to the high patriotism of this great country, everyone wants (forces) to believe in the lie...

How DARE you call my patriotism a way of supporting a lying government? How DARE you accuse the consumate professionals at the NTSB of lying to cover something up.

You asshole! I am so offended by your comment it's not even funny. I am insulted in the highest order.

Do government officials lie? Yes. But can they cover something like this up when the lowest-levels are involved? Time and again events have proven they cannot.

Of course anyone cares to know if our vice-preseident ordered a figher to shot a civilian aircraft.

Yes, and it's quite clear he gave that order, but that it was already too late.

Dirkou:

It is obvious that you, like some of my friends at WestConn, are so vehemently anit-government, anit-Bush, or anti-American that you can't see past your own prejudice. I am not going to respond to any more of your posts.

Ever.

EnoreFilho:

You're forgetting one thing: A missile striking an engine will dislodge pieces moving at hundreds of miles an hour and spinning at high speeds. In addition, it would weaken the structure of the wing, causing it to fall off during descent, sending the aircraft into a spin that would cause it to cartwheel across the landscape.

Instead, the aircraft crashed nearly intact and a few parts flew off upon impact.

One more thing... I don't agree with the guy who claims the pax were killed "just because they were Americans". That's shortsighted and way too candid. This whole issue has roots a lot deeper and complex than most people seem to realize. What's more, such a statement constitutes a very dangerous prejudice that can easily become a justification for an equally reidiculous retaliation.

AND... Yet one more thing. "Americans", whether anybody likes it or not, are all of us who live and share the whole continent, from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego. Yep, Argentinos, Peruanos, Mexicanos, Canadians, and the people living in the U.S.A. are all, by our own right, "americanos". Got it? (That's what happens when people fell asleep in Geography 101 or haven't read "Sociology for Dummies" )


Right on both counts. However, they chose a civilian target, which is unacceptable in both Western and Islamic tradition. So, we're back to "they just killed 'em because they were 'Americans.'"

(did you know the quarrels between the forebears of modern-day Palestinians and Israelis have been going on for about 4,500 years?)

Not... Exactly...

While there was certainly anymosity between the city-dwelling "heathens" and the nomadic Hebrews going back for several millenia, even before the Egyptians carved out the Valley of the Kings and before any city was built on the mound of Troy, possibly even before the first Pyramids and Ziggurats, to say that modern-day Palestinians and Jews anymosity is related is... Well, it's stretching the truth more than just a bit.

you can't ignore the cause and effect relationship of Western foreign policy dating back to ummm...the crusades?

The US didn't fight the Crusades. Catholic Europe did. Why weren't they the target?

Before oil and Isreal, US involvement in the middle east was limited mostly to the Barabary Corsairs and the creation of the vairious modern states of the Arab world following WWI.

If they're still angry about the crusades, then maybe my statement a few weeks back about the US being the "biggest target" and that being the reason for all the terrorist attacks is correct. We represent the military, financial, and industrial power of the world, so we're THE big target that everyone wants to take down. Before us it was the Brits, before that the French, etc...

Bottomline: it takes two to tango. We westerners keep on doing our part on this, it'll be a never-ending story.

And if we don't respond (ref: USS Cole, Kobhar Towers, etc), we embolden them.

Not even the US, but Israel itself gave millions to the Palestinians, what did they do with that money? .. no schools to show for it, no social improvents whatsoever. Only weapons

I've been saying this for years! $183,000,000 a year in aid to the PLO, and yet they live in abject poverty. Doesn't sound like enough money to you? Well, to put it in economic-equivalents, $183,000,000 of aid to Palestine is like $4,000,000,000,000 in aid the the US, or $2,500,000,000 in aid to the EU.

Clinton sided with the muslims in the Balkans (when the local people wanted to get rid of them),

You almost made it onto my RUL, but with that comment... We are talking about mass-genocide, here (though not on the level of Iraq's Basrah area!).

On a side note, I notice that no Europeans hated Clinton for taking care of that little problem... Could it be that because Balkan Muslims look white, it's acceptable to help them, but because Iraqi Muslims look semetic, it's not acceptable to help them?

Or is it just that you hate our president because he's a Conservative Christian Republican, and Slick Willy wasn't?

The airframe was intact as it crashed into the ocean. In that case, we can see that a missile strike on a commercial airliner wouldn't necessarily destroy the airframe, especially if they used a heat seeking missile and it struck the engine.

And the missile you're talking about used a 40kg explosive warhead that, with a direct hit, would have simply blown the engine off the aircraft and probably part of the wing. The more likely indirect hit would simply send shrapnel into the aircraft, causing catastrphoic damage to various parts of the plane.

In the case of this (9/11) aircraft, we're talking about the AIM-9L, which uses a 20.8lb warhead and would cause significantly less damage but, since it is more accurate, would be more likely to score a direct hit and set fire to vaporizing fuel, causing a massive explosion that could be seen for miles around.

And, of course, the 747 is a much larger aircraft than a 757.
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it in summer school.
 
miamix707
Posts: 3848
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 2:22 pm

RE: Flight 93 Crashed W/o Cockpit Struggle?

Sun Jul 25, 2004 7:08 am

Elwood, I could care less if you put me on your respected users list or not. From what I've seen people here respect others for any dumb thing they say, that's why i dont have anyone on mine. Everyone deserves the respect to be heard on the forum. By the way I agree with you, long post but good.

The Clinton issue, well I didn't hate the man, on one side I think he's a cool guy with a gift for conveying his message across very well. Yet I didnt really like him either, being a liar being the least aspect that bothered me. I'm not even going to number all the things he did and didn't do that have affected us later, mostly in the international spectrum. Namely his lack of interest in the genocide that was going on in Sudan against the christians, and his lack of interest in Bin Laden when Sudan offered him, among other lapses. Those interested could read a book.

Yet the majority of Americans believe he's one of the best president's we've ever had. Goes to show the masses are often uninformed and decisions shouldn't just depend on "popularity". I wonder if (9/11 which was postponed from 2000 to 2001 or the failed plot to blow up 12 airliners had succeded when the other administration was in office), these same people would be bashing Clinton even more than they critizice Bush today. Not that I consider Bush to a genius either and sorry for deviating off topic  Big grin but all there is to this topic has been said already.
 
goose29
Posts: 40
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 3:19 pm

RE: Flight 93 Crashed W/o Cockpit Struggle?

Sun Jul 25, 2004 12:47 pm

You asshole! I am so offended by your comment it's not even funny. I am insulted in the highest order.



I missed the part where we were supposed to care. Why are people such sheep. I mean really do you think we know everything that the government does? If we do then tell me what goes on in area 51 or who shoot Kennedy cause I would love to know.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos