Passengers never got into the Cockpit

[CaptnKirk]

The passengers were just seconds away . . .

<CLIP>
Passengers aboard United Airlines Flight 93 fought back against the hijackers but never actually made it into the cockpit, the Sept. 11 commission concluded.

Relying on the cockpit recorder and flight data, the commission said terrorist-pilot Ziad Jarrah violently rocked the jet's wings and told another hijacker to block the door. With the sounds of fighting outside the cockpit, Jarrah asked, "Is that it? Shall we finish it off?"

Seconds later, a passenger who wasn't identified yelled, "In the cockpit! If we don't, we die!" And 16 seconds afterward, another passenger yelled, "Roll it!" Investigators previously have said they believe passengers tried to use a food cart to break the cockpit door.

Jarrah said, "Allah is the greatest! Allah is the greatest!", and he asked his fellow hijacker, "Is that it? I mean, shall we put it down?"

The other hijacker answered, "Yes, put it in, and pull it down."

Roughly 90 seconds later, the jet rolled onto its back and crashed into a Pennsylvania field at more than 580 mph, killing everyone aboard.

 

[Todd33]

Cowards, they needed an ass whooping by the passengers.

 

[imported_Aelius]

It's amazing what you can do with an improvised weapon.

Personally I think it should be a requirement of being part of the flight crew to be certified in SCARS.

That's what I'm going for sometime next year.

SCARS

It's not just a way of fighting, but a way of thinking.

The mind is the best weapon. Use it.

 

[maddogchen]

Doesn't matter, I'll always remember them as brave people.

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: Todd33
Cowards, they needed an ass whooping by the passengers.

I second that. They died like cowardly dogs fearful of the onslaught that was soon to follow...

:|

 

[CaptnKirk]

Over all their interaction resulted in the premature termination of the flight.
It never reached it's indended terrorist destination.

They didn't dare face the passengers, and they would not allow themselves to be caught.
There would have been a slim - but realistic chance that the plane could have been
landed, under some extended duress with a combination of autopilot and coaching
to one of the passengers, there may even have been a private pilot aboard who
might have been the best candidate for a landing attempt.

The important thing is that their express actions did, infact end that attack.

Most likely target was in Washington, lots of big high-value targets there.
Whitehouse, Senate, Capitol Building, Congressional Chambers, Supreme Court.
We escaped something, we may never know what it would have been.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Terrorists are by definition cowards. The whole idea behind terrorism is to hit the softest target you can and still achieve your goal.

This they have accomplished.

However if you think they didn't have inside help you gota be completely out of your freaking mind. Some of them were on watch lists while traveling with their buddies.

To catch people like that is not an accident. It's clockwork.

Funny how nobody is asking questions as to how these terrorists got on the plane in the first place. It barely gets mentioned here and there but the tough questions get a dumb look for an answer.

I think there is roughly 3,000 dead whom deserve answers. It is the least that we could do.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Hafen

Originally posted by: Todd33
Cowards, they needed an ass whooping by the passengers.

I second that. They died like cowardly dogs fearful of the onslaught that was soon to follow...

:|

Absolutely, the Cowards knew they couldn't carry out their objective and knew the passengers would tie them up and they would be forever prisoners of the Western world they despise.

 

[Rainsford]

"Holy Warriors" indeed. They may have killed everyone, but they still failed completely. Not only did they give us a group of heroes that, believe me, will be emulated if terrorists are ever stupid enough to try to hijack another American plane, but they had years of planning, training and weapons and they got beat by a bunch of random Americans on a plane.

It's fvcking pathetic is what it is. They can't go after targets that are military or really even worth anything in the long run, so they try to hit the softest targets possible to cause the greatest damage. And they can't even do that right if a bunch of random civilians decide to do something about it.

 

[conjur]

"Let's Roll!"

Words that will forever give me shivers and a grand sense of admiration to those who fought the terrorists onboard that plane.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
"Holy Warriors" indeed. They may have killed everyone, but they still failed completely. Not only did they give us a group of heroes that, believe me, will be emulated if terrorists are ever stupid enough to try to hijack another American plane, but they had years of planning, training and weapons and they got beat by a bunch of random Americans on a plane.

It's fvcking pathetic is what it is. They can't go after targets that are military or really even worth anything in the long run, so they try to hit the softest targets possible to cause the greatest damage. And they can't even do that right if a bunch of random civilians decide to do something about it.

They were even more heroic than "random". The first 2 planes were so close to each other, the passengers didn't have time to get the word of what was happening but a cell phone call to the passengers on the PA flight got the word to them about the NY Hi-jackings.

These passengers were "Informed" Heros.

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Hafen

Originally posted by: Todd33
Cowards, they needed an ass whooping by the passengers.

I second that. They died like cowardly dogs fearful of the onslaught that was soon to follow...

:|

Absolutely, the Cowards knew they couldn't carry out their objective and knew the passengers would tie them up and they would be forever prisoners of the Western world they despise.

Oh believe me, if I was on that flight, and I got into the cockpit, they would not be alive if we landed.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Hafen

Originally posted by: Todd33
Cowards, they needed an ass whooping by the passengers.

I second that. They died like cowardly dogs fearful of the onslaught that was soon to follow...

:|

Absolutely, the Cowards knew they couldn't carry out their objective and knew the passengers would tie them up and they would be forever prisoners of the Western world they despise.

Oh believe me, if I was on that flight, and I got into the cockpit, they would not be alive if we landed.

But if you did that then you would be sued by his family.

 

[Kibbo]

I agree that full credit should be given to the passengers of that flight. Who's hands were on the stick is irrelevent. What matters is that their revolt potentially saved the lives of hundreds.

Aelius, I must disagree with your view on what the goals of the terrorists were.

They hit soft targets in order to provoke their enemies into oppression. Once this happens, their terror is justified in retroactively. At least to the populations their enemies end up oppressing.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Hafen

Originally posted by: Todd33
Cowards, they needed an ass whooping by the passengers.

I second that. They died like cowardly dogs fearful of the onslaught that was soon to follow...

:|

Absolutely, the Cowards knew they couldn't carry out their objective and knew the passengers would tie them up and they would be forever prisoners of the Western world they despise.

Oh believe me, if I was on that flight, and I got into the cockpit, they would not be alive if we landed.

But if you did that then you would be sued by his family.

They would be welcome to try to collect money from Crimson. I'm sure the goat they sleep with can use some pedicuring.

Those people are heroes and nothing would change that if they would have lived and broke the neck of those scumbag terrorists. Lets assume the government would have the good sense to protect those passengers and their pictures and list of names would be considered classified to protect their lives. Anyone who would take action against them would have their lives forfit and I would be happy to cut their throat myself.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: Kibbo
Aelius, I must disagree with your view on what the goals of the terrorists were.

They hit soft targets in order to provoke their enemies into oppression. Once this happens, their terror is justified in retroactively. At least to the populations their enemies end up oppressing.

I'm trying to understand what you are trying to say but it absolutely makes no sense what so ever. Try again?

 

[TheBDB]

Originally posted by: Todd33
Cowards, they needed an ass whooping by the passengers.

I'm not sure if I would call someone with that kind of dedication a coward.

Maniac, fvcktard, terrorist asshole, piece of $hit, etc. yes, but coward....

 

[Kibbo]

Sure thing Aelius.

Terrorists do not have a legitimate polical aim to begin with, or if they do, it is out of the realm of realism.

They attack their perceived enemy in order to provoke that enemy into extreme action for self-protection. The "softer" the target, the more likely the enemy will react with excessive force. This force often has negative consequences for the population the extremist purported to represent. Then, that population begins to see the extremist group as their saviours from the oppressor the terrorists created.

Example, very simplified for argument's sake.
Israel begins to negotiate a two-state agreement with the Palestinians. The extremists, Hamas, don't want Israel to exist at all, an unrealistic and unattainable political goal. They bomb nightclubs and busses, to enrage the Israeli public. The Israeli government takes extreme action to suppress the terrorists, excusing any Palestinian casualties as "worth it" in order to protect its own people. The more innocent Palestinians are hurt, displaced etc., the more they start to think that Hamas was right all along. Hamas wins.

Lots of flaws with this scenario when examined in a historical framework, just an example.

If you are interested, read Michael Ignatieff. Brilliant political philosopher, advocates a position that justifies a strong response against terrorism, that keeps in mind democratic principles. His position allows one to defend the rights of the Palestinian people without acting as an apologist for the terrorists, and without single-mindedly trashing the Israelis.

Edit: I just read my prior post, very poorly written. Aplologies.

 

[imported_Aelius]

My reply in bold.

Originally posted by: Kibbo
Sure thing Aelius.

Terrorists do not have a legitimate polical aim to begin with, or if they do, it is out of the realm of realism.

100% agree. Political aim is not found in those who actually commit terrorism but those who lead them higher up. The cannon fodder die because they are brought up to think that to die for their God is beautiful. However governments conveniently group people togeather who fight for the freedom of their country with those who have no such aims. It's retarded thinking. i.e. Ireland

They attack their perceived enemy in order to provoke that enemy into extreme action for self-protection. The "softer" the target, the more likely the enemy will react with excessive force. This force often has negative consequences for the population the extremist purported to represent. Then, that population begins to see the extremist group as their saviours from the oppressor the terrorists created.

I don't agree that the softer the target the more likely they will act defensively. What you say makes sense logically but you aren't thinking like a terrorist would. The perception of the target to the population is what matters to a terrorist, not simply how easy it is to hit (soft). Hence nobody cares if some popular coffee shop gets blown sky high with 30 people inside, but if that same coffee shop was say around the corner from the White House you get a completely different response. It's all about perception. The rest of your statement is true.

Example, very simplified for argument's sake.
Israel begins to negotiate a two-state agreement with the Palestinians. The extremists, Hamas, don't want Israel to exist at all, an unrealistic and unattainable political goal. They bomb nightclubs and busses, to enrage the Israeli public. The Israeli government takes extreme action to suppress the terrorists, excusing any Palestinian casualties as "worth it" in order to protect its own people. The more innocent Palestinians are hurt, displaced etc., the more they start to think that Hamas was right all along. Hamas wins.

This isn't that simple. Life is never that simple. What you say is true but lacks something important. Groups like Hamas not only has a political goal (its political arm) but also has a desire to keep its control over the population from where they recruit soldiers and terrorists to meet that goal. To the guy at the end of a short fuse and 20lbs of TNT straped to his chest it has sweet FA to do with some political goal. For them it is spiritual.

Lots of flaws with this scenario when examined in a historical framework, just an example.

If you are interested, read Michael Ignatieff. Brilliant political philosopher, advocates a position that justifies a strong response against terrorism, that keeps in mind democratic principles. His position allows one to defend the rights of the Palestinian people without acting as an apologist for the terrorists, and without single-mindedly trashing the Israelis.

I never needed someone else to tell me what I should think or how I should view the world. A person who can think for themselves is worth 10 times his/her weight in gold. I'm not suggesting you do not think, that would be stupid to say, but rather that you need someone else to help you formulate a view, which isn't yours to start with yet you agree with. Nothing wrong with that, most highly educated people do that, I just refuse to do that. I prefer to be an outsider in my own view. If it wasn't 3am I might have a few ideas of my own on how to resolve the problem in Israel but I'm too tired to think that deeply.

Edit: I just read my prior post, very poorly written. Aplologies.

No problem. I made a similar error at first and ripped your post appart then realized it made no sense to anyone and figured your mind was working faster than your fingers. Happens to me a lot.

 

[Kibbo]

Aelius,

I think we are pretty much on the same page here. A few things.

1. Yes, it is only the higher ups who have political ends, but they are usually very unrealistic. Hamas denies the right of Israel to exist. The sheerly practical fact that they have defended themselves from numerous military campaigns as well as maintain relative political stability shows that to be a pipe dream. The IRA consistently refused to acknowledge the rights of the Protestant MAJORITY in N. Ireland. The political goals are so far from reality as to be meaningless.

2. I agree that symbolism is an additional motive in selecting targets. But the civilian nature of the target is neccessary in order for the "victim" group to be able to rationalize excessive force, especially for democratic states. I wager that the Israeli people would not be so accepting of Palestinian casualty numbers if Hamas' targets were entirely military.

3. You've hit my point exactly. The terrorist groups use the excesses of the anti-terrorist squads as a means to gain support from the populations they purport to represent, in order to gain recruits and increas their own power and influence. And the religious aspects do aid them to that end, but they are not the only ideas that are able to inspire zealotry. Think of what normal people have been motivated to do in the name of the "State" or the "Worker." It does, however, allow for a further separation of the means from the "political" goals in the minds of their recruits. "Who cares if it'll do any good, so long as I'm going to heaven."

4. I have seized upon some selected aspects of Ignatieff's works due to the problems I had resolving the issue for myself. Just looking at the casualty numbers I had to feel for the Palestinians in this case, but I had to acknowledge the rights of Israelis to defend themselves. I tried rationalizations along the lines of "Democratic states have a greater responsibility for mercy," but I felt it was weak. Also, up here some of the rhetoric on the left danced on the edge of anti-semitism, which further weakened the efficacy of my arguments, especially with my Jewish friends. Ignatieff, more than anything else, gave me a new language with which I could argue, one which separated me from the radical student groups. Also, his arguments were just better thought out than mine, and I he forced me to acknowledge where I was wrong. He does this for a living. He's smarter than me. He was "righter" than me. I don't just parrot his views, i diverge on a few points. And have elaborated on them.

5. Thanks for the second chance. Good discussion.

 

[NickE]

I find it very interesting some of the comments here - particularly the one about soft, non-military targets. Funny, I always thought that the Pentagon had some vague military connection, then again I could be wrong.
Also interesting how facts are never allowed to cloud the issue - comments like '"Let's roll" will always be in my memory' when it clearly states that what was said was "Roll it" presumably referring to a food trolley.

Psychologically it also says a lot, in the discussion about mobile phones and getting news from the ground on what was going on, that these people had their phones switched on, despite the emphasis from flight crews on the importance of turning them off at all times when in the air. It's this sort of disregard for rules and procedures that led to many of the lapses that have now finally been highlighted, and no amount of gung-ho rhetoric can hide those facts.

 

[DeeKnow]

Originally posted by: NickE
Also interesting how facts are never allowed to cloud the issue - comments like '"Let's roll" will always be in my memory' when it clearly states that what was said was "Roll it" presumably referring to a food trolley.

never let logic get in the way of a good story, my friend...😀

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: NickE
I find it very interesting some of the comments here - particularly the one about soft, non-military targets. Funny, I always thought that the Pentagon had some vague military connection, then again I could be wrong.
Also interesting how facts are never allowed to cloud the issue - comments like '"Let's roll" will always be in my memory' when it clearly states that what was said was "Roll it" presumably referring to a food trolley.

You really have a problem with memory retention, don't you?

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010916phonecallnat3p3.asp
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/beamer.htm

You're confusing two separate conversations.

Psychologically it also says a lot, in the discussion about mobile phones and getting news from the ground on what was going on, that these people had their phones switched on, despite the emphasis from flight crews on the importance of turning them off at all times when in the air. It's this sort of disregard for rules and procedures that led to many of the lapses that have now finally been highlighted, and no amount of gung-ho rhetoric can hide those facts.

Mobile phones are not allowed during flight not because of any safety reasons but because the planes travel so quickly and are high up in the air that phones switch cells so quickly or are available to multiple cells that it can mess with the capabilities of the cells. Even if it were a safety concern, I think everyone on Flight 93 would rather the plane crash into the ground than into the White House, don't you?

 

[happyhelper]

The mind is the best weapon. Use it.

you unwittingly point out why any rational person fears for his country's security (if he is American)

T'would be nice to live with comrades who use their minds. But when you have approximately half the electorate actually considering voting for George Bush, it just shows you how fuchked you reallly are. Move.

 

[owensdj]

When I think about the story of Flight 93, I think about how much worse that day would have been if it had hit its target. How much worse Americans would have felt seeing the White House or Capitol Building in flames? Wasn't Congress in the Capitol Building on 9-11? :Q