Difference between revisions of "UA93 was shot down"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→Counterarguments: tweaks) |
|||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
* This would indicate an arguably ''proper'' response to the situation, i.e. something along the lines of the military scrambling jets to intercept, the aircraft not responding to hails, and the military deciding – given circumstances in DC and NYC – to shoot down a hijacked civilian airliner over sparsely inhabited territory rather than risk its use as yet a third missile. If so, why hide the true story? | * This would indicate an arguably ''proper'' response to the situation, i.e. something along the lines of the military scrambling jets to intercept, the aircraft not responding to hails, and the military deciding – given circumstances in DC and NYC – to shoot down a hijacked civilian airliner over sparsely inhabited territory rather than risk its use as yet a third missile. If so, why hide the true story? | ||
** There is a [http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/060801fege01 Vanity Fair article] which sheds considerable light on what probably happened, without directly addressing the issue of why the physical evidence suggests a shoot-down. (Possibly that resemblance is because of the difference between this crash and all prior crashes: whoever was in charge was ''trying'' to crash, and hence may have aimed the plane more or less straight down.) | ** There is a [http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/060801fege01 Vanity Fair article] which sheds considerable light on what probably happened, without directly addressing the issue of why the physical evidence suggests a shoot-down. (Possibly that resemblance is because of the difference between this crash and all prior crashes: whoever was in charge was ''trying'' to crash, and hence may have aimed the plane more or less straight down.) | ||
| − | * It seems clear that airline passengers are certainly | + | * It seems clear that airline passengers are (now) certainly willing to risk their personal safety (and perhaps that of the airplane, though there have as yet been no further incidents where crashing the plane was the only way to prevent its use as a missile) to foil terrorist plots. Prior to 9/11, most airplane-based terrorism was best handled by negotiation, and passengers were best advised to go along calmly and quietly in order to prevent unnecessary deaths. In the wake of 9/11, where it is well known that the stakes can consist of much more than the airplane and its occupants, people have begun fighting back: |
** '''2002-02-16''' [http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,203478,00.html The Shoe Bomber's World] | ** '''2002-02-16''' [http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,203478,00.html The Shoe Bomber's World] | ||
** '''2003-05-29''' [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32822 Stabbing would-be hijacker subdued] | ** '''2003-05-29''' [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32822 Stabbing would-be hijacker subdued] | ||
** '''2006-12-26''' [http://www.stuff.co.nz/3913449a12.html Passengers thwart Russian plane hijacking] | ** '''2006-12-26''' [http://www.stuff.co.nz/3913449a12.html Passengers thwart Russian plane hijacking] | ||
Revision as of 21:25, 20 January 2007
Overview
There is a theory that UA93, the plane which crashed in Pennsylvania on 9/11, was shot down by the US military – contradicting the official story that the passengers, having learned of the other airplane-based attacks via cellphone, took over the command cabin and crashed the plane rather than allowing it to be used against a target.
Discussion
There is some evidence for this, e.g. eyewitness claims. Further documentation needed just so we have all the claims/arguments in one place.
Need Facts
- Links to recordings of cellphone conversations (which at least one site claims have not been made available)
- Eyewitness claims of an apparent missile strike on UA93
- Any other arguments used to support this theory
Counterarguments
- This would indicate an arguably proper response to the situation, i.e. something along the lines of the military scrambling jets to intercept, the aircraft not responding to hails, and the military deciding – given circumstances in DC and NYC – to shoot down a hijacked civilian airliner over sparsely inhabited territory rather than risk its use as yet a third missile. If so, why hide the true story?
- There is a Vanity Fair article which sheds considerable light on what probably happened, without directly addressing the issue of why the physical evidence suggests a shoot-down. (Possibly that resemblance is because of the difference between this crash and all prior crashes: whoever was in charge was trying to crash, and hence may have aimed the plane more or less straight down.)
- It seems clear that airline passengers are (now) certainly willing to risk their personal safety (and perhaps that of the airplane, though there have as yet been no further incidents where crashing the plane was the only way to prevent its use as a missile) to foil terrorist plots. Prior to 9/11, most airplane-based terrorism was best handled by negotiation, and passengers were best advised to go along calmly and quietly in order to prevent unnecessary deaths. In the wake of 9/11, where it is well known that the stakes can consist of much more than the airplane and its occupants, people have begun fighting back:
- 2002-02-16 The Shoe Bomber's World
- 2003-05-29 Stabbing would-be hijacker subdued
- 2006-12-26 Passengers thwart Russian plane hijacking