Gov't: Hijacker Crashed Flight 93 on 9/11

Edit to provide link, change title to match.

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/6482371.htm

{By TED BRIDIS=
{Associated Press Writer=

WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. investigators now believe that a hijacker in the cockpit aboard United Airlines Flight 93 instructed terrorist-pilot Ziad Jarrah to crash the jetliner into a Pennsylvania field because of a passenger uprising in the cabin.

This theory, based on the government's analysis of cockpit recordings, discounts the popular perception of insurgent passengers grappling with terrorists to seize the plane's controls.

The government's findings — laid out deep within the report on the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that was sent to Congress last month — aim to resolve one of the enduring mysteries of the deadliest terror attacks in U.S. history: What hap-pened in the final minutes aboard Flight 93?

The FBI strenuously maintains that its analysis does not diminish the heroism of passengers who — with the words ``Let's roll'' — apparently rushed down the airliner's narrow aisle to try to overtake the hijackers.

... Citing transcripts of the still-secret cockpit recordings, FBI Director Robert Mueller told congressional investigators in a closed briefing last year that, minutes before Flight 93 hit the ground, one of the hijackers ``advised Jarrah to crash the plane and end the passengers' attempt to retake the airplane.''

more

makes no sense

Wonder if they will release some fake recordings to prove their point.

Here. Wear this: :tinfoilhat:. It'll keep the evil mind control rays of the transportation safety board out of your head.

- C.D.

like a good gullible Gomer.

they were just about impossible to understand or decifer

None of the stories seem to jive with the evidence, they seem to be making the crap as they go along. Here is a little fun link

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/flight77.htm
http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=48
(snip)
Planes of 911 Exceeded Their Software Limits
Submitted by: Anonymous "
by Jim Heikkila
Saturday August 17, 2002

Two of the aircraft exceeded their software limits on 9/11.
The Boeing 757 and 767 are equipped with fully autonomous flight capability, they are the only two Boeing commuter aircraft capable of fully autonomous flight. They can be programmed to take off, fly to a destination and land, completely without a pilot at the controls.

They are intelligent planes, and have software limits pre set so that pilot error cannot cause passenger injury. Though they are physically capable of high g maneuvers, the software in their flight control systems prevents high g maneuvers from being performed via the cockpit controls. They are limited to approximately 1.5 g's, I repeat, one and one half g's. This is so that a pilot mistake cannot end up breaking grandma's neck.

No matter what the pilot wants, he cannot override this feature.

The plane that hit the Pentagon approached or reached its actual physical limits, military personnel have calculated that the Pentagon plane pulled between five and seven g's in its final turn.

The same is true for the second aircraft to impact the WTC.

There is only one way this can happen.

As well as fully autonomous flight capability, the 767 and 757 are the ONLY COMMUTER PLANES MADE BY BOEING THAT CAN BE FLOWN VIA REMOTE CONTROL. It is a feature that is standard to all of them, all 757's and 767's can do it. The purpose for this is if there is a problem with the pilots, Norad can fly the planes to safe destinations via remote. Only in this flight mode can those craft exceed their software limits and perform to their actual physical limits because a pre existing emergency situation is assumed if this mode of flight is used.

Terrorists in fact did not fly those planes, it is totally and completely impossible for those planes to have been flown in such a manner from the cockpit. Those are commuter aircraft, not F-16's and their software knows it.

(snip)

fart. Whoever made that claim is as full of shit as Bush is. And the 'remote control' bit is just as ridiculous.
:eyes:
:grr: :puke:

The limits were set for the passengers, not the plane, least that's the way the text above reads. They were talking about programming for the software, not the structural capabilities of the plane.

Btw it was nice of Bev Harris getting all these programmers to post all their tricks in plain lingo for us laymen to read up on :kick:

false.

Period.

Not true.

And let the people decide.

If there was an uprising there was a chance that the passengers would survive. You can't coerce someone to commit suicide by threatening murder.

Anyway, I still think we shot that plane down.

and President Cheney said to do it anyway. That's what they don't want to say.

There was no need to shoot down that plane just there.

You'd try to negotiate. Hope for passenger uprising. Hope hijackers chicken out.

from 3 Mile Island.

If it was shot down, it was shot down in the right place.

If a terrorist put it into the ground, why did he pick an open field when he could have at least tried to take a few more infidels out with him?

(statute miles) straight line, at least on my map. 13-15 minutes at maximum speed.

Maximum speed = 590 statute miles/hour

~11 minutes & 10 seconds away.

the pilots were on a suicide mission anyway. Why risk that the uprising in the cabin might lead to someone successfully overtaking the cockpit and flying the plane to safety? You can't be a martyr for Allah if your suicide mission "fails" and you are brought safely to Earth by angry passengers. They had to crash the plane, and if not into the Capitol, then a spot of ground in PA would suffice.

And if they had hit that nuclear reactor, we would have been in deep trouble. Thank God they didn't.

Makes more sense and their course was sound as well.

We are so fortunate that they weren't successful.

How about thanking god for causing the hijackers to land the plane safely? Oh yeah, god didn't do that, god just crashed the jet into the ground instead of 3 mile island. Thanks god for killing only 100 people instead of 1000. Thanks.

Had they hit Three Mile Island many more people would have died. I think it was sad that anyone died and that was unfortunate, but I am glad that it wasn't much worse.

first the Beamer fairy tale, then the Jessica Lynch fraud. What corny chestnut will the junta create for the masses next ?

BYW, anybody remember some story about Barbara Oleson on a cell phone, which was later proved to be impossible ? Ted Oleson made the comments. Im sorry she was a victim, but the story was later proven to be bogus.

but didn't want to hear the broken-record mantra screaming "You should be ashamed for not respecting the dead" and "You should be ashamed for not respecting those that died on 9/11" :)

But you spoke my sentiments exactly :)

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steveseymour/lies911/lies.htm

:-) Jennifer

ON EDIT: Slight warning... the site above is very :tinfoilhat: but does debunk the Olson phone call quite well.

plane into the Pentagon herself?

Without full disclosure....Something that is a year late...Any theory is plausible. Without the facts, no one can decide just what happened that day. However, if the government has nothing to hide, then why are they hiding the facts?

And cell-phones don't work on flying airliners. Makes you wonder what other BS we've been fed, don't it?

provided you are near enough to a tower. It's just illegal to use them. Concern about RF messing with the plane's electronics.

It is NOT true that 'Any theory is plausible'. Many theories floated around here are implausible, impossible, silly, ridiculous, insane, nutty, bizarre, weird, paranoid, physically impossible, and...

don't make enough sense to pass for the plot of a James Bond movie.

No matter how many secrets the Bush admin decides to keep.

Of course, the don't want an investigation--they screwed up Big Time. That doesn't mean Barbara Olsen is in a secret hiding place in the Bahamas and the Pentagon was secretly hit by anti-graviton scalar electromagnetic beams fired from a flying saucer piloted by Jews from Uranus.

The theory that several calls came from these planes is bunk. So what other BS are you going to believe?

As far as any theory being plausible: You can talk out uranus all you want but there are many reasonable theories that are possible. As long as the coverup continues, no theory which is plausible should be discounted, as so any here have done.

I especially like the one about explosives being planted in the two towers. It is reasonable and possible. Therefore plausible. Since we do not have all the facts, it behooves us to not be false witnesses.

Do you beleive that velocity somehow affects radio transmissions? Whats the significance of 400 MPH? Some fairy tale you made up?

Cel phones do work on airplanes. Their use is forbidden for practical reasons. Because of the altitude, they tend to reach more than one cel at a time, which confuses the computerized switching system that transfers you from one to the other as you travel. But that doesn't mean they don't work, it just means they don't work perfectly. Those calls were real.

And you can't give me a shred of evidence to back up your statement. Oh fine...for one second a connection may somehow work, but that's it. Hell, phones have a hard time at 60mph on a highway.

You have no evidence that the calls were made. None. Just a bunch of third hand stories.

"Those calls were real." BS.

-MY- phone works just fine at 60 mph. Actually, I might have tried it going a bit faster than that. Maybe you need a new cell service provider!

Any terrestial speed is completely irrelevant to the performance of a cell phone.

Truthfully, I have never tried using the phone in an airplane. The flight attendant would object.

However, the cell phone calls were reported by several grieving relatives. I see no reason to think some Secret Government of Black Helicopters made these calls up.

The point made above focuses on the transfer of cell phone signals between cell phone transmission towers. That transfer may be able to take place without incident while driving at 60 mph because of the spacing of the towers.

Multiply that speed by seven times, leave the cell phone transmission towers spaced as they are, and you may have a different story.

The bullshit, therefore, is this statement:

Any terrestial speed is completely irrelevant to the performance of a cell phone.

all the time.
:eyes:

the operator who spoke to Mark Beamer? Is she in on this conspiracy too? Also, there are telephones in airplanes that I have used myself. Some of this crap is getting ridiculous!!

Those calls were real.

Now I think you are going to have to provide a link to support your statements about cell phone operations. They seem to be provided solely to support your predetermined (and wholly unsupported) conclusion.

HorseShit....

Speed of Light = 186000 miles/Sec
Speed of Plane = 0.1111 mile/Sec.

Proximity to towers is an issue. The phone wouldn't work in the middle of nowhere. But you cannot make the general statement that the phones won't work. HorseShit.

Explosives in the towers? As if several tons of burning jet fuel wouldn't do anything a few pounds of explosive would do? As if many thousands of eyewitnesses are lying? As if -anybody- could have known which floors those planes were going to hit?

HorseShit. Simply HorseShit.

HorseShit.

The link mentions selected reports from selected eyewitnesses. Plus a few statements of supposition as fact--'Most of the fuel burned outside the building'.

All the world's architects and structural engineers have been keenly interested in the mechanisms of collapse of those buildings and whether other buildings are similarly vulnerable. The collapse is well understood; there is no issue.

HorseShit. A whole stable full of it.

http://www.panix.com/~clp/news/telecom/Cell_phones_on_planes.html

Using cell phones aloft on commercial and private aircraft is banned
not by the FAA but by the Federal Communications Commission, which
regulates telephone use. In prohibiting airborne use in 1991, the FCC
was mainly concerned about cell phones' potential to interfere with
ground-to-ground cellular transmission.

Economic Incentive

The airlines and telecommunications companies also have an economic
incentive to keep cell phones turned off in the air. The carriers
receive a cut of the revenues from the telephones installed onboard.
The two main providers of this air-phone service, GTE Corp. and AT&T
Corp., charge about $6 for a one-minute call, more than 20 times
typical cell-phone rates.

A Sponge in the Sky

The FCC's concern about air-to-ground cellular interference is real
enough. From high in the sky, a cell phone acts like a sponge,
sucking capacity out of the cellular sites that carry calls. For
ground users, cell phones communicate by connecting to one cell site
at a time; from the air, because of the height and speed of an
aircraft, the phones often make contact with several sites at once. If
allowed, this would limit call capacity, which would mean less
revenue, says Howard Sherry, chief wireless scientist at Telcordia
Technologies Inc., formerly the research arm of the Baby Bell
telephone companies, in Morristown, N.J.

the phone only needs to lock in to ONE tower and stay locked in until it needs another.

the point for those who are "confused"....why would the solicitor general make up stories about his deceased spouse? A normal person would be grieving......something aint kosher.

He was photographed night-clubbing with a young woman a couple months after 9-11. If he gives a damn about what happened to his wife, he's got one hell of a way to show it.

sort of like the evil newt gingrich throwing the divorce papers at his dying wife.

with her friend Olsen.

It doesn't make sense. Flight 93 broke up in the air. Rampaging passengers shouting "let's roll" couldn't do that. And hijackers flying the plane into the ground couldn't do that.

They shot the plane down a short distance away from Three Mile Island, probably the right decision. Why not just admit it? We're all adults here. Sheesh.

Flight 93 broke up in the air.
...
And hijackers flying the plane into the ground couldn't do that.

Descending too fast in can aircraft overstress it, especially if it's fully loaded, and cause it to lose structural integrity while still airborne.

Remember, air resistance increases on the square....

This is based on a mis-conception--That an anti-aircraft missile would blow a plane to smithereens, but that a crashing plane would hit the ground mostly intact.

Simply not true. Anti-aircraft missiles are designed to hit an engine, or other heat-producing part. They use the minimum explosive necessary to disable the plane. Take out the engine or hydraulics or control surfaces.

More weight = slower missile.

OTOH, a plane in a powered dive from high altitude (thin air) to low altitude could certainly generate aerodynamic forces that could tear it apart. Especially if the controls were handled by an inept or panicked person.

We need to see a full report on this crash, but there is no reason at the moment to believe the plane was shot down.

My friends live near Bedford, PA. Their TV comes form Altoona. They said on 9/11 the noon news showed a farmer describing how he watched another plane flying near Flight 93 until it was out of his sight. They watched for that news segment to be repeated, but it never was.

My friends are completely credible, intelligent people. We all think it was shot down by the "other plane". I've never said this publicly before, or told many other people.

not an armed military jet.

Here's the pardon the pun, plain poop: the Air Defense of the US totally failed in their duty. Not one attacking airliner was shot down, intercepted, diverted, or stopped by ANY US defense forces.

None. Zilch. Nada.

Given that we've spent TRILLIONS on defense, I find it odd that no one seems to be wondering what we've bought.

Even a SINGLE interception would help justify the terrible waste we've shat down the Pentagon-hole; if those clowns could even barely showed a minimal touch of competence, I'd be willing to cut them some slack. Hell, if they managed to intercept an unarmed, civilian aircraft, Dubya would be crowing that every day. Woohoo! He stopped Ter'rizm.

Instead they totally and utterly fucked up, to whit thousands died.

But that's alright, we were spared the embarassment and no one was held accountable.


There was no military jet. That story is just a freeper fantasy, pretending there's competence where there is naught but a sucking vacuum.

is there that the 'other plane' did any shooting?

There could well have been another plane in the vicinity. By accident or a military intercept. Doesn't mean they shot the airliner down.

and it exploded in the air.

That's what is known (by witnesses on the ground, on the plane, and the other debris field)

1. It is not 'known' that the plane exploded. There are reports, but eyewitness accounts of traumatic events are always suspect.

2. A large plane subjected to a powered dive from high altitude followed by violent maneuvers could well break apart in midair. These things aren't designed to to aerobatics.

3. How do you know there was not bomb on board?

4. Family members (from cell phones) and the FBI (from the cockpit recorder) tell of a passenger uprising and chaos on the plane. Strange coincidence that the plane is shot down at just the same time as this occurs.

5. AA missiles don't blow jetliners to smithereens. They take out an engine and let it fall to the ground in one piece. Just as effective in the end.

I know someone in the Johnstown area who saw the fighter. There are stories circulating locally about how many who claimed to see it were told by government people that, no, they didn't see it. The person I know that saw the fighter, though, said that no one from the government ever talked to him.

The article states that this is ".. one of the enduring mysteries of the deadliest terror attacks in U.S. history... "

To me one of the most enduring mysteries is why no fighters were scrambled from Andrews AFB. Andrews by fighter jet on full throttle is maybe at most 90-120 seconds from the pentagon. Can someone clarify this for me ? I'm familiar with the area and have seen fighters screaming out across the beltway numerous times before 9-11. The distance is something like 5 to 10 miles.

we all have been passing it along,from another poster

Here's something you might want to read:

http://standdown.net/

And to go 10 miles in 120 seconds, you'd only have to be going 300 mph.

Especially towards the end:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/flight93.html

I put that together, and it's my guess that the military shot the plane down. Why cover that up? Because there should have been plenty of time to realize the passengers were formulating a plan to take over the plane. There were at least 21 minutes between when a passenger first said over a phone that the passengers were formulating a plan to take over the plane and when the plane crashed. And that was on a phone already being closely monitored by many gvmt agencies, including the FBI.

There has never been any evidence whatsoever that Three Mile Island was a target. There are nuclear power plants all over the US, it's just that that one is well known. In fact, the hijacked Flight 11 literally passed directly over one in the Hudson River Valley. If the hijackers were simply looking for the most deaths, the one in New York State would have been the one to hit. It's estimated that would have caused about 20 million deaths, and it is the one target in the US that could cause the greatest number of casualities. But as 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed later said in his one public interview, they considered nuclear plants early on, but ruled them out because they thought they would have an overall negative propaganda effect.

Anyways, if you were in a position to order a shootdown or not that morning and didn't know that, one still could have safely waited at least another five minutes before Three Mile Island drew near, if indeed the plane headed in that direction at all (when it crashed it actually was headed south and away from there). Standard procedure says one should do a fly by first, have a military fighter establish eye contact with the pilot and see who's flying the plane, then tip the fighter's wings in warning and so on. None of that was done. If the plane was shot down, it was shot down from a distance in violation of all standard procedures.

What was standard that day?

I'll be honest and say that I find most of this thread annoying. (Not your post here, btw.) Had I been in charge, I would have ordered this plane shot down so it couldn't cause damage anywhere, whether a town or a city or a nuclear plant.

I also would have gone on air and said I had done it and why.

So if we did shoot it down, the only mistake that was made in this case was not going public. The shootdown would have been wise.

There was a second debris field 8 miles away from the main one that this doesn't help with at all.

That,

and wouldn't the black box record what the pilot did?

First debris field below the shootdown point, probably one of the engines; Second debris field where the rest of the plane glided to the ground. 8 miles would be about right.

No blackbox ever reported or released. Public was not allowed near the larger debris field while everything got cleaned up.

the two debris fields at first convinced me that the plane had, indeed, been shot out of the sky. However, there is the possibility that high-g maneuvers could have broken the plane up in flight and could have been equally responsible for two debris fields.

I don't have enough facts at my disposal to take a position on which of the two explanations are the truth.

I remain skeptical.

...and President Cheney said to do it anyway. That's what they don't want to say.

Anyway,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=nation/nationalsecurity&contentId=A14327-2001Sep11

"The caller described the plane as "going down," Cramer told AP. "He heard some sort of explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane, and we lost contact with him." "

If the plane just broke up (and obviously I don't know the technical details), would it look to a passenger on board like an explosion giving off 'lots of white smoke'?

I had never seen that article, or, that description of the telephone call.

Let me digest this:

...minutes before the crash...cell phone...from one of the planes lavatories...."we're being hijacked, we're eing hijacked"....explosion, white smoke...

first question: how could the caller see white smoke from the lav?
second question: cell phone reception from the lav in a plane...?(damned lucky connection)
third question: "We're being hijacked". The other alleged phone calls had taken place long before this...why this call at this late date?

I'll mull it over.........

NO.

Anti-aircraft missiles carry small amounts of explosives, which disable engines or control surfaces.

An airliner hit by an anti-aircraft missile would lose power or control and fall out of the sky in one piece.

Everyone knows Jessica Lynch was the one who bravely crashed that plane and single-handedly saved AWOL and all of 'murka!!

I sincerely hope this doesn't create more pain for the survivors than they've already endured.

The fact that people on the plane tried to intervene is something we can hold on to.

Let's roll...

There, now I feel better...

This thread is laced with the most paranoidal, cynical people outside of wacko militias in Idaho.

The efforts of the passengers is to be lionized, not minimized.

I saw the interview with the young wife of one of the guys who rushed. I have no doubt she was telling the truth. Her husband called her, asked about the rumors of planes going down and said he and some other boys were going to try to do something.

This tragedy has been bad enough. F****** let it rest.

I'm as cynical as the next guy, but 9/11 was a monumental tragedy and the efforts of the passengers on this plane were heroic and potentially prevented the loss of many more lives. I couldn't care less whether they were trying to wrest the controls away or whether their actions caused the terrorists to crash the plane into the ground. Let's honor them by leaving this issue alone.

Not until our dear president pulls our the stops and initiates a completely legitimate, sufficiently funded, and truly independent investigation of all the events before, during, and after the execution of this horrible crime. From Bush's steadfast opposition to any investigation from the get go, to his appointment of one of the highest-profile political liars of our age to lead the team that was finally put together begrudgingly and under pressure, to his insulting allotment of only a fraction of the funds spent investigating Clinton's improprieties...

To "let it rest" before any real attempt at finding the truth has been made would be the ultimate gesture of disrespect toward those who perished. Their families and the rest of the world need to know how and why these people died, and there are plenty of us who will not rest until this happens. This is not about obsessing over morbid details, it is about justice being served, period. In my opinion nothing is more important than this.

Okay, this is what you call a "tinfoil" post. You coincidence theorists out there ought to just go ahead and skip it because you've already made up your mind that your government isn't lying to you, despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

Now personally I am of the LIHOP (Let It Happen On Purpose) veign when it comes to 9/11. MIHOP (Made It Happen On Purpose) just seems too...I don't know....unthinkable to me. However, I couldn't help but notice how well this new bit of info fits into the MIHOP theory.

There is a school of thought out there that believes that only the second plane to hit the world trade center was in fact a passenger airliner, and that that plane was remotely operated with no passengers on board. What about the others, you say? Well there is no video or pictures to show the first plane trashing into the WTC, but there have been a number of reports that it was not in fact a passenger airliner. As for the Pentagon, you might recall that initial media reports indicated that it had been some sort of truck bomb, not a frigging Boeing 767. It seems like it would be quite hard to confuse the two.

As for the fourth plane, the one that crashed in Pennsylvania, here is the theory: The four planes were all re-routed to an AFB in Ohio, which all of the planes came close to on their flight paths. From that point the dummy airliner was sent via remote control into the WTC towers after the first non-airliner plane had hit the other tower. The passengers that were on board all four of the planes were then herded onto one plane, that plane was flown over the middle of nowhere in Pennsylvania, and then shot down, killing all of the potential witnesses on board.

Now, there are a lot of holes in this theory (though no more than in the official theory, IMHO). It may very well have not happened this way. But you can't deny that this new piece of info, coming out a year and a half after the fact, sure fits into the theory pretty well.

And no, I am not posting any links. Use google and look it up for yourself. What you find just might surprise you.

so right away you are wrong about that. It was the French documentary on the NYFD.

The Boston flights never got east of Albany and New Jersey so forget about getting close to Ohio.

but no matter, the bottom line is: Bush and his incompetent admin. are responsible for 9/11. It happened on their watch- NOT Bill Clinton's.

sky. I noticed by one account, the gov tried to maintain the "Let's roll" nonsense.

It would be absolutely wrong and incompetent if we did not.
Cheney gave the order while smirko hid.

The proper and usual response would have been to wait until the last possible moment in hopes of some better resolution.

If efficient and competent, they would have shot it down just before it reached the DC metropolitan area.

Shoot it down over an uninhabited plain in Bumfuck Pa....or wait till its on the outskirts of DC over suburbs? Of course it would make perfect sense to shoot it down where the crash site was. Waiting till the last possible moment in that situation would have cost many more lives.

If they shot it down, they picked the right place.

:kick:

When you think about it, this is a bizarre kind of interpretation, because why would passengers who had regained control decide to crash the plane deliberately (which is how he is phrasing it). He's said this several dozen times, as if to imply that ordinary people decided to sacrifice themselves to save the government, and in particular, him (that plane was supposedly en route to the Capitol or the White House). And that the rest of us should aspire to do this as well -- give our all for him and his administration.

In my mind anyway, there's a big difference between a bunch of people who were trying to get home, and fanatics who were the mirror image of the hijackers. I would rather see them as the former, rather than the latter ... it certainly doesn't make them any less brave.

So I'm going to be watching * fundraising speeches, to see if he persists with his interpretation.

My pet theory is that the passengers actually regained control of the plane, but we unable to relay that fact in time to avoid having the plane shot down. That would explain why they pushed the original version, and decided to change it now. The idea of the passengers fighting back was a great rallying point, but then they had to claim that the passengers drove the plane into the ground. But does that make any sense? If they regained control of the plane, that means that they overpowered the hijackers, and there wouldn't have been any more threat. So, the story would need to be changed. Now the story they tell us is that the hijackers drove the plane into the ground before the passengers had a chance to regain control. But if the plane had been shot down, which had been completely denied up to this point, then there is a possibility that they shot down a plane that was no longer a threat. They must maintain that the hijackers were still in control of the plane.

he's the NYTimes reporter who wrote "amongst heroes" or something like that about 9/11. He had access to all the cell phone calls and families etc...

Yours is a possible scenario but not likely.