Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire United 93

But now, we are looking at this event from a post 9/11 view point.

To decide upon a proper course of action, one must take history into consideration. Up until this time, hijackers had never crashed a plane. (to my knowledge) And the flight crews had been trained with this consideration in mind.

The flight crews had been trained that it was preferable to yield control of the aircraft, rather than the hijackers kill passengers to gain that control. Kind of like bank employees are instructed to comply completely with robbery instructions, in order to avoid deadly confrontations.

I would prefer to deal with a deadly confrontation, than to yield control of my destiny to another. I am sure that most of the people contributing to this forum are of a like mind set. But we are not the typical breed of American Sheeple.

If these hijackings had turned out like all others before, the flight crews would have been raked over the coals for "forcing the hijackers to kill passengers or flight attendants", before yielding control of the cockpit.

With the mindset of the American public, and the nature of the American courts, the airline and crew may have very well been sued into nonexistance by the victim's families, for not complying with hijacker demands, had these hijackings turned out as they would have been expected to from an historical perspective.

I hold no rancor with the flight crews over their actions. They took the proper actions, given their knowledge and training at the time. I do have rancor with the American mindset, that it is better to yield to thugs, than risk pissing them off.

I always figure that once you give control of your life to a thug, it is over. It is his choice whether to end your life, and when to do so, and what to do to you in the meantime.

That is part of the reason, I would never make a bank teller or a flight attendant.

I fail to understand why the hijackers did not take away all of the passenger's cell phones. That was the mistake which cost them the success of their mission on the Whitehouse.

Had the passengers not had cell phones, or other means of learning that their plane was the fourth in an attack on America, they would not have reacted to foil the attack.

These terrorists are smart enough to make sure that mistake is not repeated in any future attacks.

Because they didn't have to. Cell phones don't work on airborne airplanes, without a bit of extra equipment--at least, not more than a few percent of the time, and even then not for more than a few seconds. They can see too many cell towers from up there, and too many cell towers can see them.

Cell-phone communication frequencies (a finite resource) are allocated under the assumption that cell phones are short-range line-of-sight communication devices, located on the surface of the earth. Hence, a particular set of frequencies might be allocated identically to two not-quite-neighboring cell towers because it would be impossible for one cell phone to contact both towers from the surface of the earth; hence they can't interfere with each other even though they're using the very same frequencies. From an airplane, though, a cell phone might be able to see both of those towers plus three or four more with the same set of frequencies, and there'd be no way it could establish any sort of communication because the towers' transmissions would walk all over each other.

Cell phones will work in airplanes if you can make their antennas directional enough that the coverage pattern includes only one tower per frequency set. There are various purposeful ways to do this; sometimes a plastic window in the aluminum fuselage of an airplane will do it accidentally for a few seconds; but it's not anything like reliable enough to depend on in an emergency.

There was no reason for the hijackers to confiscate the cell phones: they were useless.

Turning off the Air-Fones would have been a smart move, though.

So what are the Conspiracy theory's surrounding Flight 93?

I remember wondering at the time whether the flight had actually been brought down by the USAF, but that does not seem to have been the case...

I'm gonna, as soon as it's out on DVD. I don't go to theatres..

I'd rather let you do that research on your own, if you're interested in it. That way, if you're not, there's no reason you should feel guilty about continuing to believe the government's version. And if you are, you'll discover stuff with a whole lot more credibility than the Campfire's resident moonbat anarchist.

Never too old to learn something new! I never learned about Air-fones in my friends 1946 Luskin.

Have never flown commercially, and always heard stories about the Airlines having fits about cells interfering with nav equipment. Just assumed they were the source of information on this flight.

Thanks for the correction.

Sounds pretty cool.

Here's the Wikipedia entry on Air-Fones.


The FAA has a generalized CYA blanket declaration that all electronic equipment operated by passengers (except, strangely enough, that required for the sustenance of life, such as pacemakers and defibrillators) interferes with avionics; but I've talked to lots of airline pilots about this, and have never encountered one who has experienced problems from things like cell phones or laptops or PDAs or whatever. Occasionally somebody will bring a handheld VHF transceiver along so that he can listen to the radio calls between ATC and the cockpit, and then he'll go to sleep while leaning on the push-to-talk button. That's not a good thing, but that's a far cry from a cell phone.

These days, some airliners are even installing satellite cell relays in the planes themselves, so that your cell phone thinks the relay is a cell tower. Your phone establishes contact with the relay, the relay establishes contact with a communications satellite, and you've got an almost-normal cell-phone conversation, with the caveat that latency is noticeably greater than usual. But such arrangements were nonexistent or at the very most rare in 2001.


Of course: that's what the government said happened.

Barak,

I had a look on Wikipedia regarding the various conspiracy theories, surrounding Flight 93 crash, and the only anomaly I can see that has any merit is the issue of the cell phone coverage..

With regards 9/11 as a whole, it wouldn't surprise me if there wasn't more to the story than is now being made public, but I find certain of the conspiriacies such as that the Bush allowed or even organised 9/12 simply to outlandish...

Regards,

Pete

Well, when it comes to moonbat conspiracy theories, you have to let your own personal BS-O-Meter be your guide.


I find that it's a whole lot more difficult to prove an assertion than to disprove one. I think the government has done an exceptionally lousy job of proving its case, but I think the tinfoil moonbats have also done a lousy job of proving theirs. However, the simple fact that I don't believe that George Bush piloted the planes in by remote control doesn't mean I therefore swallow the government's version without question.

And, of course, the simple fact that I don't believe the government's version doesn't mean I think George Bush piloted the planes in by remote control.

I mean, look at the issue with the changing of the testimony and the confiscated security footage. As I'm sure you know, people who were videotaping the news coverage at home at the time have eyewitnesses on tape saying things at the time that are completely different from what they say now, what they are now quoted as having said back then, and what the versions of news stories and videos from that day currently available on MSM websites say they said. Five security cameras caught the entire Pentagon incident or significant parts of it, and those tapes were almost instantly confiscated by the government and have not been released (except for the infamous five frames that are carefully ambiguous). All this men-in-black muscle screams "Coverup! Coverup!" If George Bush had been piloting the planes by remote control, along with all the intricate planning that would have involved, you'd think they'd have a supply of preprogrammed eyewitnesses all ready to keep the press busy, while on-the-scene muscle went around changing the stories of accidental eyewitnesses before the press could get to them; and they'd have fake tapes made up for those security cameras that they could release almost immediately. (They could fake the tapes up now, if they wanted, but it's been too long: everybody would scream "Fake! Fake!" no matter how good they were.)

No, I don't believe the government knew it was going to happen--at least, not on the morning of 9/11/2001.

pretty good movie. something still haunts me though:
it was dedicated to ALL (emphasis mine) who died. if that included the murderers ...

Don't be too haunted. There's pretty good evidence that at least nine of the murderers are still alive.

not on that plane.

Even though I despise the Sockpuppet enough to say that George Bush had knowledge of the 9/11 events, I could not do that simply because He probably can't drive a Car let alone fly a plane by remote control.
Besides I still haven't recieved a plausible answer to who shot down TWA 800?
What irks me the most is the "HERO" tag that we have put on VICTIMS .
Soon we will be calling auto accident fatalities "Heros" simply because they had fuel from the Middle eastern Oil in their Gas tanks.

The only Heros this Country is producing are the Kids that are dying in Bush's Folly in Iraq.
I lost a friends when the Pentagon was struck and some of the People that I know were there say it was NOT AN AIRCRAFT.
Recently there has been some photographic evidence floating around on the internet that brings to light a lot of questions like the size of the Entry hole in the Building, lack of wings, or Tail section and other little things that can cause doubt in someone that is smart enough to not accept what they are told, but what they see.
One thing I know for sure is that you can't trust the People that control our Govt. and our lives, they will stop at nothing to get what they want.

Fish---I found the way they phrased that dedication disturbing as well.

And those hijackers are sharing living quarters with Judge Crater, Jimmy Hoffa and Generalissimo Francisco Franco......I trust Barak on anarchist archana but he's around the bend on this one.

I haven't seen the movie and like you all are reporting here I've heard it is well done, realistic and without the ususal anti-American propaganda but I just don't know if I'm up to it.

I don't mean to hijack (I wouldn't make a pun here in all seriousness) this thread but what this president and country need to understand this is not against radical Islam; it's against Islam. It's not against terrorism; it's against Islam .

Purportedly, there are already "suitcase" nuclear devices - yes, bombs - in place here in this country already and OBL need not be in a hurry; he's patient and will not act until everything is just right. These devices have been refined; there are now those in existence that are more powerful than Fat Boy (I believe that was its nickname - the size of a Volkswagen Bug, even bigger) that took out Hiroshima.

I believe it was "Little boy". Fat Boy's a Harley.

Thanks Teeder. A subliminal slip describing how I see myself.

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Maybe I"m way off here, but it does disturb me to read from some posters that there could be a cover up in 9/11 for whatever reasons. Probably reasons folks feel I don't need to know about.

On the other hand when things are not as they seem in the mideast, the same folks scream BS etc....

I know a few folks that are in the military but not really, that claim that OBL is at the bottom of the red sea. And certainly could be as killing him and publicizing it could be a bad deal for folks involved.

Much the same for WMD. Maybe they were there, maybe not. Maybe they still are. Doesn't matter much to me, Saddam was not a good person and what we did was a good effort, whether it hangs on or not is another issue.

Seems to me like some speak out of 2 sides of their mouth at times.

Rambling rant mode off.

Jeff

I'm the guy with the word "Coverup" in his post.

I have no idea whether you need to know or not. That's for you to decide. If you think you need to know, then point your browser at Google and find out. If you don't think you need to know, then you're probably right.