New Flight 93 Theory - Families Dispute It

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

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

***

Flight 93 Families Dispute FBI's Theory
By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Families of passengers who rebelled against hijackers aboard United Airlines Flight 93 said Friday the FBI theory that the terrorists deliberately crashed the plane into a Pennsylvania field was based on "limited and questionable interpretations" of the cockpit recording.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=542&u=/ap/20030808/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/attacks_flight_93&printer=1

***

This was the lead story on ABC Evening News, which shocked me, since it was a small wire service story in this morning's NY Times. The ABC report closed with the comment that one family menebr wondered what else the government has not been upfront about. I wish there had been footage of that quote.

i think it is important to discuss 9/11 stuff in the 9/11 folder also. just because someone started a GD thread on something 9/11-related, does that automatically mean that a thread cannot be started here on the same subject? and i titled the post something more general than a news headline for that reason.

It's kinda uncomfortable to say, but the families of the victimes are sure to be the among most biased people in the world about this. That's just basic psychology. The families questions and demands for accountability should certainly be treated with respect. As for some of their beliefs....well, most will just believe whatever makes them feel better about a traumatic experience. People with a little more critical distance will do better at weighing the evidence for various possible scenarios.

Actually this new official scenario is no more plausible than the old official scenario. There is no crash site evidence that fits either of these convenient propaganda stories. The plane was blown to smithereens in the air, and the wreckage was spread over eight miles.