Flight 93

[BillsNYC]

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42112

[billsfanone]

I always thought that "lets roll" story was a bunch of BS.

[Alaska Darin]

No clue but that was my first reaction because of where it landed.

[BillsNYC]

They 100% shot it down....a Rosen scene would be a big fiery mess...the wreckage from the plane was scattered all over the place for miles as if it were blown up in the sky.

[RkFast]

The "Lets Roll" thing is NOT bs one bit. Beamer and others on that flight DID storm the cockpit. That is irrefutable given the CVR and ATC tape transcripts and the cell phone conversation accounts.

 

What is still in question is whether Beamer and the rest of the men on board took control of the jet, resulting in its Rosen or it it were shot down by a military jet. Regardless, Beamer and his men were still incredibly brave and their efforts should not be minimized.

 

Personally, I have no problem with that jet being shot down, given where it was headed.

 

And finally, can Bush put a GAG on Rumsfeld, already? This guy has more verbal miscues and gaffes falling out of his mouth than Don Rickles hopped up on speed.

[DC Tom]

They 100% shot it down....a Rosen scene would be a big fiery mess...the wreckage from the plane was scattered all over the place for miles as if it were blown up in the sky.

182753[/snapback]

 

That belies the fact that air-to-air missiles tend not to destroy planes. They cause damage that makes them fall out of the sky. A shoot-down should look like a plane Rosen...unless the plane breaks up in mid-air. But a plane can break up in mid-air if it's over-stressed (e.g. dive to fast, pull up to hard at too high a speed). Ergo...the wreckage distribution is NOT evidence of a shoot-down.

 

As for Rumsfeld's comments...read them carefully. The subject (grammatically speaking) in all those sentences is the hijackers. "The hijackers did this, they did that, they 'shot down' Flight 93". It sounds a lot like a bad choice of words in 'shot down' more than anything else. Otherwise, you're saying that he's speaking about the terrorists, then suddenly jumps to talking about the USAF shooting down the airliner, then jumps right back to talking about the terrorists again. That's egregiously poor speaking for any senior-level government executive with public speaking experience...save maybe for George W.

[IDBillzFan]

As for Rumsfeld's comments...read them carefully.  The subject (grammatically speaking) in all those sentences is the hijackers.  "The hijackers did this, they did that, they 'shot down' Flight 93".  It sounds a lot like a bad choice of words in 'shot down' more than anything else.  Otherwise, you're saying that he's speaking about the terrorists, then suddenly jumps to talking about the USAF shooting down the airliner, then jumps right back to talking about the terrorists again.  That's egregiously poor speaking for any senior-level government executive with public speaking experience...save maybe for George W.

182855[/snapback]

I was just getting ready to point that out. He's not talking about us. He's talking about the hijackers because otherwise it makes no sense within the context of his statement.

[Mickey]

That belies the fact that air-to-air missiles tend not to destroy planes.  They cause damage that makes them fall out of the sky.  A shoot-down should look like a plane Rosen...unless the plane breaks up in mid-air.  But a plane can break up in mid-air if it's over-stressed (e.g. dive to fast, pull up to hard at too high a speed).  Ergo...the wreckage distribution is NOT evidence of a shoot-down.

 

As for Rumsfeld's comments...read them carefully.  The subject (grammatically speaking) in all those sentences is the hijackers.  "The hijackers did this, they did that, they 'shot down' Flight 93".  It sounds a lot like a bad choice of words in 'shot down' more than anything else.  Otherwise, you're saying that he's speaking about the terrorists, then suddenly jumps to talking about the USAF shooting down the airliner, then jumps right back to talking about the terrorists again.  That's egregiously poor speaking for any senior-level government executive with public speaking experience...save maybe for George W.

182855[/snapback]

That was my first thought when I read it Tom. Rummy was talking about the hijackers themselves taking the jet down which is what the tapes all point to. In the 9/11 report the hijackers are talking about whether it was time to crash the jet, a question which they faced because the passengers were in the process of trying to take back control of the aircraft. At some point, apparently when it was clear to the creeps in the cockpit that the passenger uprising was going to succeed, one of them is heard saying that "yes, its time" or words to that effect.

The 9/11 report also shows that the shoot down order did no good as it came too late and was not relayed to the pilots.

 

The passenger assault could be heard on the tapes, relatives of victims have identified the voices of their loved ones during the sustained effort (it lasted over 3 minutes). The "pilot" shook the plane back and forth to try and interrupt the assault. After 3 minutes or so he is heard to ask "Is that it? Shall we finish it off?". A reply is heard on the tape: "No. Not yet. When they all come then we finish it off." Sounds of more fighting are heard. A passenger is heard to say: "In the cockpit. If we don't, we'll die!". Sixteen seconds later a passenger says "Roll it!" [could they have been using a beverage cart as a battering ram?]. Then the "pilot" is heard to say "Allah is the greatest, Allah is the greatest!". He then says: "Is that it? I mean, shall we put it down?". The reply heard was "Yes, put it in it and pull it down". Then the same voice says "Pull it down, pull it down" and again the "pilot" says "Allah is the greatest, Allah is the greatest!". The passengers could be heard still attacking the cockpit as the plane crashed into the field.

 

The plane crashed at 10:03 am. The first notice that it had been hijacked was not received by the FAA until 9:34 am. The FAA order for all aircraft to land to clear all US airspace did not go out until 9:42 am. The FAA only began to even consider asking for military help with regard to flight 93 at 9:53. Another aircraft reported seeing flt 93 at 10:01 "waving its wings". This was the pilots attempt to throw off the passenger assault. An Air National Guard Cargo Plane on the way to Minnesota passed over the crash site within minutes of the crash and reported seeing black smoke rising from the site. At no time before the crash did the FAA request military help with the problem of flight 93 nor did they even pass the information they had to the military. The first notification of the problems with that flight recieved by the military didn't occur until 10:07, after the plane crashed. The military couldn't find the flight because it was on the ground. The only fighters in the air over the capital, from Langley, were told at 10:10 that in they did not have clearance to shoot down aircraft: "negative-negative clearance to shoot..." were the exact words used by the mission crew commander. At 10:15, the military was notified that flight 93 had crashed.

 

Some testimony by NORAD officials later turned out to be simply incorrect. For example, one official thought that they learned that 93 had been hijacked at 9:16. No way. The hijacking had definitely not occurred yet. There was a lot of confusion involving confusing suspect flights. When some of these guys were testifying about 93, they were confusing it with AA 11. Cheney was evacuated to the shelter starting at 9:37. They took him to the tunnel leading to the shelter where he waited for his wife who arrived at 9:52. He arrived in the shelter at about 9:58 and spoke to the President between 10:10 and 10:15. It was during that talk that allegedly the shoot down order was given. At that time, flight 93 was already in the ground. WH Deputy Chief of Staff Joshua Bolden suggested to Cheney that he confirm the shoot down order with the President at 10:18 and also testified that up util that time, he was not aware that the President had indeed given that order. Cheney called the President and "confirmed" the order which was noted on AF 1 by Ari Fleischer at 10:20. Whether Cheney decided on his own at 10:10 or Bush did at that time or not until later doesn't matter as far as flight 93 is concerned. It was not shot down because it was down long before anyone could find it, give the orders and get a plane in the air to get it done.

[_BiB_]

There weren't any capable aircraft wheels up in intercept range given where 93 came down.

 

Period.

[RkFast]

The passenger assault could be heard on the tapes, relatives of victims have identified the voices of their loved ones during the sustained effort (it lasted over 3 minutes). The "pilot" shook the plane back and forth to try and interrupt the assault. After 3 minutes or so he is heard to ask "Is that it? Shall we finish it off?". A reply is heard on the tape: "No. Not yet. When they all come then we finish it off." Sounds of more fighting are heard. A passenger is heard to say: "In the cockpit. If we don't, we'll die!". Sixteen seconds later a passenger says "Roll it!" [could they have been using a beverage cart as a battering ram?]. Then the "pilot" is heard to say "Allah is the greatest, Allah is the greatest!". He then says: "Is that it? I mean, shall we put it down?". The reply heard was "Yes, put it in it and pull it down". Then the same voice says "Pull it down, pull it down" and again the "pilot" says "Allah is the greatest, Allah is the greatest!". The passengers could be heard still attacking the cockpit as the plane crashed into the field.

 

damn...........................

[billsfanone]

I was just getting ready to point that out. He's not talking about us. He's talking about the hijackers because otherwise it makes no sense within the context of his statement.

182897[/snapback]

 

Because it was a Freudian slip.