9-11 Question...why so much about the Penn crash, but not the others??

[NFS4]

I know that there were some heros on the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania, but what about the people on the other planes (two into the WTC, and the Pentagon)? We don't hear anything about what happened to them or hear their names? Are they not worty? Instead, we get our ears filled with that Tod Beamer dude...

Anyway, just a thought

 

[pulse8]

Probably because not much else is known about what went on in those planes.

Flight 93 makes for a good all-around story.

 

[BigJelly]

They stand out because of what they did. They knew what was happening and decided to do something. Sacrivice is just a heroes traight and rewarded with respect and rememberance.
Not to sound cruel but the three other planes didn't know what happened and were killed-along with people in the building. Which also points out the firemen/police officers because they went in--not out.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: pulse8
Probably because not much else is known about what went on in those planes.

Flight 93 makes for a good all-around story.

True, True...that makes sense. But OTOH it just makes those other three flights (and lives) seem unsubstantial in comparison

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: BigJelly
They stand out because of what they did. They knew what was happening and decided to do something. Sacrivice is just a heroes traight and rewarded with respect and rememberance.
Not to sound cruel but the three other planes didn't know what happened and were killed-along with people in the building. Which also points out the firemen/police officers because they went in--not out.

Forgot to add this:
Moreover, it would be very emotional to list all 2,820 names even if they scrolled 10 a second (which is pretty fast) it would take 280 seconds about 5 minutes. Think how emotial it would be if it was 1 a second almost 50 minutes of seeing people who were killed--even if just a name.

 

[mithrandir2001]

Those other planes crashed into the buildings. The PA plane crashed into the ground, minimizing destruction. Some believe the WTC could have been saved if the passengers on those planes would have fought back against the terrorists. They had nothing to lose.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: mithrandir2001
Those other planes crashed into the buildings. The PA plane crashed into the ground, minimizing destruction. Some believe the WTC could have been saved if the passengers on those planes would have fought back against the terrorists. They had nothing to lose.

So b/c they didn't fight back, they should be relegated to "non-important" status?:Q The people on the Penn. plane had the "luxury" of knowing that the other planes crashed; the people on the other planes probably had no clue that they were on a one way ticket to crashing into a building.

 

[MainFramed]

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: BigJelly
They stand out because of what they did. They knew what was happening and decided to do something. Sacrivice is just a heroes traight and rewarded with respect and rememberance.
Not to sound cruel but the three other planes didn't know what happened and were killed-along with people in the building. Which also points out the firemen/police officers because they went in--not out.

Forgot to add this:
Moreover, it would be very emotional to list all 2,820 names even if they scrolled 10 a second (which is pretty fast) it would take 280 seconds about 5 minutes. Think how emotial it would be if it was 1 a second almost 50 minutes of seeing people who were killed--even if just a name.

yea that, and i think that they kinda mention more about it because not only what they did, but beacuse what they saved....that plane was headed for white house. because of them the white house is still in full contact.

 

[mithrandir2001]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: mithrandir2001
Those other planes crashed into the buildings. The PA plane crashed into the ground, minimizing destruction. Some believe the WTC could have been saved if the passengers on those planes would have fought back against the terrorists. They had nothing to lose.

So b/c they didn't fight back, they should be relegated to "non-important" status?:Q The people on the Penn. plane had the "luxury" of knowing that the other planes crashed; the people on the other planes probably had no clue that they were on a one way ticket to crashing into a building.

No, not "non-important" status. Just not on the same level of remarkability as the PA flight.

You can't really discuss this issue without being insensitive so I don't know how to tread here. But it has crossed my mind several times in the last year that all that destruction could have been eliminated and thousands of lives directly and millions of lives indirectly could have been reinstated had those planes not been allowed to crash against their targets. Hindsight is 20/20 but I think it's a part of my psyche now that if I'm on a plane that is hijacked, I won't sit idle. Words are easy to say, actions are harder to perform, but I think we've learned that "these people" are irrational and irrationality requires an equally irrational response. 100 unarmed passengers can overtake 4 armed terrorists. Without bloodshed? No. But our planes are not missiles and if those terrorists want to meet Allah we can accommodate their request. Millions at a time if need be.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: mithrandir2001

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: mithrandir2001
Those other planes crashed into the buildings. The PA plane crashed into the ground, minimizing destruction. Some believe the WTC could have been saved if the passengers on those planes would have fought back against the terrorists. They had nothing to lose.

So b/c they didn't fight back, they should be relegated to "non-important" status?:Q The people on the Penn. plane had the "luxury" of knowing that the other planes crashed; the people on the other planes probably had no clue that they were on a one way ticket to crashing into a building.

No, not "non-important" status. Just not on the same level of remarkability as the PA flight.

You can't really discuss this issue without being insensitive so I don't know how to tread here. But it has crossed my mind several times in the last year that all that destruction could have been eliminated and thousands of lives directly and millions of lives indirectly could have been reinstated had those planes not been allowed to crash against their targets. Hindsight is 20/20 but I think it's a part of my psyche now that if I'm on a plane that is hijacked, I won't sit idle. Words are easy to say, actions are harder to perform, but I think we've learned that "these people" are irrational and irrationality requires an equally irrational response. 100 unarmed passengers can overtake 4 armed terrorists. Without bloodshed? No. But our planes are not missiles and if those terrorists want to meet Allah we can accommodate their request. Millions at a time if need be.

I understand EXACTLY what you are saying, BUT you must understand that these are your average US citizens on a plane and they have no clue what is going on. Typical terrorists hijack a plane, make demands, and then end up landing somewhere. When was the last time terrorists hijacked a loaded plane and crashed into buildings of this size?

Those people on those three planes were probably just sitting there, waiting out there time hoping that they would end up landing somewhere and hoping that everything would be resolved.

The people on the Penn. plane acted b/c they KNEW what had happened on the other three planes and thus took matters into their own hands.

So even the though of shifting the blame to the people in the other three planes seems to be a bit "out of touch" IMHO.

 

[Ime]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: mithrandir2001

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: mithrandir2001
Those other planes crashed into the buildings. The PA plane crashed into the ground, minimizing destruction. Some believe the WTC could have been saved if the passengers on those planes would have fought back against the terrorists. They had nothing to lose.

So b/c they didn't fight back, they should be relegated to "non-important" status?:Q The people on the Penn. plane had the "luxury" of knowing that the other planes crashed; the people on the other planes probably had no clue that they were on a one way ticket to crashing into a building.

No, not "non-important" status. Just not on the same level of remarkability as the PA flight.

You can't really discuss this issue without being insensitive so I don't know how to tread here. But it has crossed my mind several times in the last year that all that destruction could have been eliminated and thousands of lives directly and millions of lives indirectly could have been reinstated had those planes not been allowed to crash against their targets. Hindsight is 20/20 but I think it's a part of my psyche now that if I'm on a plane that is hijacked, I won't sit idle. Words are easy to say, actions are harder to perform, but I think we've learned that "these people" are irrational and irrationality requires an equally irrational response. 100 unarmed passengers can overtake 4 armed terrorists. Without bloodshed? No. But our planes are not missiles and if those terrorists want to meet Allah we can accommodate their request. Millions at a time if need be.

I understand EXACTLY what you are saying, BUT you must understand that these are your average US citizens on a plane and they have no clue what is going on. Typical terrorists hijack a plane, make demands, and then end up landing somewhere. When was the last time terrorists hijacked a loaded plane and crashed into buildings of this size?

Those people on those three planes were probably just sitting there, waiting out there time hoping that they would end up landing somewhere and hoping that everything would be resolved.

The people on the Penn. plane acted b/c they KNEW what had happened on the other three planes and thus took matters into their own hands.

So even the though of shifting the blame to the people in the other three planes seems to be a bit "out of touch" IMHO.

I think the big difference is, the people in the 3 planes that crashed into buildings are classified as "Victims". They did not act (which was not there fault, as has been pointed out), and in so doing simply became victims. Tragic victims used as flying bombs to kill more victims on the ground.

Flight 93 is considered different to us because those people had information and acted on it. Those they crossed a threshold from "Victims" to "Heroes". Society does not do this to belittle the Victims, but is done to uphold the actions of the Heroes as "Good Behavior". Think of it as societies' way of enforcing what it thinks should be done in that situation.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: Ime

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: mithrandir2001

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: mithrandir2001
Those other planes crashed into the buildings. The PA plane crashed into the ground, minimizing destruction. Some believe the WTC could have been saved if the passengers on those planes would have fought back against the terrorists. They had nothing to lose.

So b/c they didn't fight back, they should be relegated to "non-important" status?:Q The people on the Penn. plane had the "luxury" of knowing that the other planes crashed; the people on the other planes probably had no clue that they were on a one way ticket to crashing into a building.

No, not "non-important" status. Just not on the same level of remarkability as the PA flight.

You can't really discuss this issue without being insensitive so I don't know how to tread here. But it has crossed my mind several times in the last year that all that destruction could have been eliminated and thousands of lives directly and millions of lives indirectly could have been reinstated had those planes not been allowed to crash against their targets. Hindsight is 20/20 but I think it's a part of my psyche now that if I'm on a plane that is hijacked, I won't sit idle. Words are easy to say, actions are harder to perform, but I think we've learned that "these people" are irrational and irrationality requires an equally irrational response. 100 unarmed passengers can overtake 4 armed terrorists. Without bloodshed? No. But our planes are not missiles and if those terrorists want to meet Allah we can accommodate their request. Millions at a time if need be.

I understand EXACTLY what you are saying, BUT you must understand that these are your average US citizens on a plane and they have no clue what is going on. Typical terrorists hijack a plane, make demands, and then end up landing somewhere. When was the last time terrorists hijacked a loaded plane and crashed into buildings of this size?

Those people on those three planes were probably just sitting there, waiting out there time hoping that they would end up landing somewhere and hoping that everything would be resolved.

The people on the Penn. plane acted b/c they KNEW what had happened on the other three planes and thus took matters into their own hands.

So even the though of shifting the blame to the people in the other three planes seems to be a bit "out of touch" IMHO.

I think the big difference is, the people in the 3 planes that crashed into buildings are classified as "Victims". They did not act (which was not there fault, as has been pointed out), and in so doing simply became victims. Tragic victims used as flying bombs to kill more victims on the ground.

Flight 93 is considered different to us because those people had information and acted on it. Those they crossed a threshold from "Victims" to "Heroes". Society does not do this to belittle the Victims, but is done to uphold the actions of the Heroes as "Good Behavior". Think of it as societies' way of enforcing what it thinks should be done in that situation.

OK, that's the best explantion I've heard...thanks