November 9, 2001

4:51 AM

Flight 93 crash CONSPIRACY- paranoia or bravery. Is the truth out there or just a load of wackos.I remember initial reports of F16 and then there was nothing more said. Link care of Seethru
posted by kramer_101 (30 comments total)

Aerodynamic stress, such as that caused by an uncontrolled plunge, can easily cause a plane to break up in midair. That would explain the debris found miles away.
posted by luser at 5:07 AM on November 9, 2001

They were given the go-ahead to shoot down, right? I think that is possibly the reason the government told the press about giving the F-16 pilots clearance to take them out if necessary, possibly to soften the public up to the truth should it ever become necessary for us to know.

Either way, it really doesn't matter. Although the whole "passenger bravery" subplot virtually guarantees that most people will stick with that version of the story (much like the Cassie Bernall myth), even if the government ever admits it did shoot a plane full of passengers down. Everything is being spun so thoroughly that it feels like a Tilt-A-Whirl. Problem is that most people are too busy enjoying the ride to ask questions.
posted by tpoh.org at 5:11 AM on November 9, 2001

tpoh- Are you suggesting that we are not being told the truth because it would disgust us or do you think that we are being told a lie that is meant to disgust us?
posted by kramer_101 at 5:15 AM on November 9, 2001

...and we're off. Surprised the conspiracy theory wackos took so long to jump on this one.

I think the author of the website overlooks the role played by the Trilateral Commission and the black helicopters.
posted by darren at 5:21 AM on November 9, 2001

It strikes me as odd that we would shoot the plane down and then keep this a secret from the public when a hosrt few days later the govt announced that its new policy would be to shoot down hijacked planes that seemed to represent another terrorist use as bombs. In other words, how repulsive could it be when it quickly became national policy?
posted by Postroad at 5:23 AM on November 9, 2001

More from disinformation.com. Brian Tuohy recalls certain eyewitness accounts...
posted by ferris at 5:43 AM on November 9, 2001

I have to admit, though I'm in no way implying anything "conspiracy" about this, that I'm curious why we haven't heard the black box voice recorder tape... Or has this been made public and I just somehow missed it?
posted by skechada at 5:48 AM on November 9, 2001

I don't think I care whether or not it got shot down...just if they lied about it. That's pretty annoying. But the current story sounds really good, about a group of passengers taking things into their own hands.

I'm not sure how high up the plane would need to break apart in order for bits and pieces to be found miles away. It's pretty high, though, I think. So it would have had to reach a pretty high velocity (and planes are meant to go pretty fast...at least 5-600 miles an hour...and stay together) in order to break apart. And it would have needed to do it from pretty high up in order for the debris pattern to scatter so much.

And what's up with the FAA crack down on air traffic controllers? And what's up with the one flight traffic controller who said that the F16 pilot must have seen the whole thing?
posted by taumeson at 5:48 AM on November 9, 2001

And this from Buzzflash. What was flight 93's real target?
posted by ferris at 5:52 AM on November 9, 2001

Not nearly as noxious as some conspiracy sites. Lots of theories, lots of differing eyewitness accounts and no real jumping to conclusions (bar the obligatory "government keeping us in the dark" bit). I have to admit, I've been puzzled by the 8 mile debris field for quite a while yet. The aerodynamic stress theory is an interesting one, luser -- does it have a precedent? It seems likely to have to be a mid-air break up in any case, at least comparing it with the high impact ground collisions in this study.
posted by dlewis at 5:54 AM on November 9, 2001

"paranoia or bravery" what does this mean. IF it was shot down (very unlikely) was not the pilot brave? and those brave people whom attacked these animals? why would i be "paranoid". you are injecting typical words that one associates with events that are perhaps mysterious. (typical conspiracy po-pooers) If you want conspiracies, ones that will get you thinking, e-mail me. Stuff like, The assassination of americas only king aboard a U.S. navy vessel. or a nice one about aaron burr had hamilton whacked by a fellow in the next bush.
posted by clavdivs at 6:22 AM on November 9, 2001

Passenger planes are usually designed to withstand multiples of observed conditions or operational envelope. E.g. 1.5 times their maximum gross weight, 3 times the stress caused by the strongest turbulence ever recorded, 1.5 times the speed, etc, etc. The same reason people are afraid of planes (there is no "way out") is why aero engineers (I used to be one) calculate such big safety margins into the designs.

In other words, I do not buy into the "stress caused it to disintegrate in mid-air" theory. You should also know that "uncontrolled dive" is a design condition for most planes (it's what is usually experienced in severe turbulence for smaller times, though) and the "uncontrolled" part is not such a big deal: passenger aircraft are designed to remain stable (i.e. fly smoothly) when uncontrolled.

That been said, I don't buy into the conspiracy theory either.
posted by costas at 6:40 AM on November 9, 2001

I asked these questions on September 17th.

The responses I got in that thread satisfied my curiosity, but then again, I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
posted by jragon at 6:45 AM on November 9, 2001

...and we're off. Surprised the conspiracy theory wackos took so long to jump on this one.

I'm no conspiracy "wacko", but I was talking about this on September 12.

Shooting the plane down, if possible, would have been the right thing to do. So would not making that knowledge public right away. (By now, I think it should have come out.) I think the "hero" story was just too good for the feds to burst the bubble.
posted by jpoulos at 6:52 AM on November 9, 2001

You should also know that "uncontrolled dive" is a design condition for most planes

That would definitely make sense. More for the safety of people on the ground underneath the plane's trajectory.

So is there any precedent for such an extreme mid-air break up? (whatever the cause).
posted by dlewis at 7:08 AM on November 9, 2001

possibly to soften the public up to the truth should it ever become necessary for us to know.

That is a very disturbing statement....
posted by rushmc at 7:58 AM on November 9, 2001

I don't really see what's "conspiracy theory" about this. I didn't read the entire site, but the pages I went through just seemed to be the work of some curious person who'd assembled all available data on the event and attempted to draw some conclusions from it. Somebody has to do it, and in this age a website is the place to put the results.

-Mars
posted by Mars Saxman at 8:01 AM on November 9, 2001

tpoh- Are you suggesting that we are not being told the truth because it would disgust us or do you think that we are being told a lie that is meant to disgust us?

i think we are being lied to because that is the proper way to run a government in the opinion of ayatollah bush and cronies.
posted by quonsar at 8:20 AM on November 9, 2001

I'm on the "don't care" side of this one. Given that the other 3 planes were hijacked and subsequently crashed into buildings, I'm okay with them being shot down as it probably saved lives. I don't really recall any official-type person (i.e. not a reporter or "journalist") explicitly saying that flight 93 crashed. I mostly remember hearing that there was evidence that the passengers revolted and it somehow went down. Being shot down falls within "somehow" I think. Besides, Like jpoulos said, they probably thought the "hero" story was too good for morale. Conspiracy? nope, don't see one. Even if there was a gunman on the grassy knoll, Kennedy's still dead...
posted by srw12 at 8:29 AM on November 9, 2001

One method, and probably not the only one, of exceeding the design of the aircraft is to deploy an engine thrust reverser while in flight. On most jet planes, I believe this is not recoverable, and will cause a catastrophic break up.
posted by groundhog at 9:17 AM on November 9, 2001

Several of the sites listed above say that flight 93 was wint\hin minutes of reaching several nuclear facilities.

Say what you will about OBL, but the entire attack was calculated and measured. (That the media was attacked my Anthrax is another example, IMO, of their carefully considered plans).

If Fl#93 was in fact aiming for a nuclear power plant, and had succeeded in causing a meltdown, don't you think this would have brought the US within range of nuclear retaliation? Would this fit into OBL's planned scenario?

Lastly, I don't think this is a coverup. I think FL#93 presented a golden opportunity for the gov't to capitalize on a "they fought back like heros" inspirational story for a badly bruised national psyche to latch onto for inspiration.
C'est la guerre
posted by BentPenguin at 9:21 AM on November 9, 2001

It strikes me that a bomb on board would explain the far-flung debris. Apparently the FBI denies this, so I guess it's still a conspiracy theory.

And I suppose the thing that is most bothersome about the whole issue is that relatively simple explanations are forced to become conspiracy theories. Is it something to do with the age of PR we live in, where the government is practically expected to spin and sugar-coat, if not lie, to avoid saying anything even remotely disturbing? Really, how many of us would complain if the plane was shot down? It would be the right thing to do.
posted by D at 10:29 AM on November 9, 2001

I don't really see what's "conspiracy theory" about this.

Don't you know? Questioning the official line about any event, pointing to the history of lies and deception and attempts of the government to "engineer" public opinion to their perceived advantage, showing any desire to know the truth, supported by fact rather than "cuz I say so," is tantamount to being a loony conspiracy theorist. Get with the program!
posted by rushmc at 11:14 AM on November 9, 2001

Conspiracy? nope, don't see one.

Conspiracy would not lie in having shot down the plane. Conspiracy would be having shot down the plane and not admitting and explaining this (possibly quite justifiable and appropriate) action to their boss (the public).
posted by rushmc at 11:16 AM on November 9, 2001

Really, how many of us would complain if the plane was shot down? It would be the right thing to do.

Will someone please think of the airline industry!!
posted by skallas at 1:46 PM on November 9, 2001

Conspiracy? not sure the term fits.

The arguments advanced by that Web site certainly give one pause....

On the other hand, if the government wanted to hide the truth about the jet's intended "destination," would concealing a shoot down really advance things? I think I would feel more assured to hear that the airforce was able to scramble jets and act; in any case, it's not so obviously more reassuring that it's worth hiding the truth.

By the way, do the events of 9/11 alter the conclusions about TWA Flight 800?
posted by ParisParamus at 2:17 PM on November 9, 2001

in any case, it's not so obviously more reassuring that it's worth hiding the truth.

That there's SANE thinking, boy! We's talkin bout da GUVMINT, here!
posted by rushmc at 2:25 PM on November 9, 2001

in any case, it's not so obviously more reassuring that it's worth hiding the truth.

The premise of this thread/a conspiracy is that some information has not been disclosed. If, for example, the government knew that the plan was to ram Three Mile Island, but letting OBL know that we knew this would compromise intelligence, that might be a legitimate reason to not disclose the TMI plan.

So, of course there are situations where the truth should be witheld. But here, we're only talking about how the plane was brought down.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:33 PM on November 9, 2001

There are also situations where spell check should be used.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:19 PM on November 9, 2001

Paris, here's what Buzzflash has to say about EgyptAir Flight 990 (think that may be the one you mean).
posted by ferris at 6:20 PM on November 9, 2001