Friday, September 16, 2011

Who Saved What Now?

Just in time for the tenth anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks, a memorial was unveiled at the site where, ten years ago, United Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, the flight famous for its passengers who allegedly revolted against its hijackers. “They [the passengers] gave the entire country an incalculable gift. They saved the capital from attack. They saved god knows how many lives. They saved the terrorists from claiming the symbolic victory of smashing the centre of American government…and they did it as citizens.” Bill Clinton said in his speech at the unveiling held last Saturday. Clinton wasn’t the only one to speak at the memorial, George W. Bush and Joe Biden made speeches about the passengers also, each of which I have watched several times out of complete bewilderment. Call me crazy, but can somebody please explain to me when it was decided that the passengers being responsible for saving Washington D.C. from attack is factual? Call me nuts, but do we really have enough hard evidence to transform that theory into fact?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not here to dissuade you of this or back some paranoid 9/11 Charlie Sheen conspiracy bullshit. In fact, I'm not even saying that a passenger revolt isn’t what happened on that plane, but by the same token, nor am I saying that people inexperienced at flying Boeing 757s at low altitudes can do it without burning up in a fireball. What I am dismissing, however, is anybody who treats the brief and ambiguous evidence we have regarding Flight 93 as solid and conclusive testimony to support that the passengers became hostile with the hijackers, which lead to the plane crash. I'm no lawyer, so correct me if I'm wrong, but any evidence they do have is speculation and heresay, is it not?

First, let’s lay the cards out on the table - we have passengers saying on their phones that they're considering 'rushing' the cockpit and then we have the terrorists in the cockpit screaming 'They're coming; they're coming'. Around the same time also, the plane was recorded as, what I understand, bobbing up and down and from side to side. So, we have two recordings that don't tell us much at all and a plane flying erratically; wow, they've cracked the case wide open haven't they. I mean, are we really doing this, saying this is what definitely happened?

Now to explain the hands - what anyone fails to say out loud is that whenever the media uses quotation marks to 'quote' what was said in the sixty two calls that were made from the plane by passengers, they aren't quoting the actual passenger, they are quoting the passenger's husband or wife or relation's testimony. And, given that, how valid could these quotes be, even if the source is trustworthy? Let's look at it in context: Within the hour, two airliners have just gone into buildings in New York City, with a third plane crash at the Pentagon in Virginia, now somebody you love and adore is calling you saying that there are men on their plane whom have attacked the pilots and claim to have a bomb. If there is anytime you're going to have a euphoric mix of emotions, it's right now. Let me ask you, could you properly quote what was said in any of those conversations, given the circumstances? Not only that, but at the time you would be quoting this, there's also the added trauma of losing your loved one and finding out about it from the news. You see, I’m quite positive that nobody has heard these calls. The only phone calls we have actually heard and can accurately transcribe are voice mail messages that were left and maybe (a big maybe) we can trust the GTE operators who claim they spoke to passengers...but even they have emotions, so who knows. Heresay.

Secondly, the recording of the last half hour in the cockpit is just something so open to discussion that we might as well just forget it; in fact, lets just nix it, right now. They said 'They're coming; they're coming', that very well could be referring to passengers, but it might actually be referring to fighter jets they thought they could see in the distance, it could mean that they were watching porn, who knows, that's what I'm saying. As for the plane going all over the place and then crashing: of course we can assume that they were trying to stop the passengers who were about to knock the cockpit door down and that when that failed to stop them, they realised that the operation was going to shit and decided to crash the plane into the ground. But let’s not forget, apart from the theoretical knowledge, Ziad Jarrah's (the head hijacker) skill at flying those planes was novice at best, I mean they all thought that they were speaking to the passengers on the intercom when, a matter of fact, they were talking to some control tower, that's how well they knew the controls. Any skill Jarrah did have was learnt by flying two-man, light aircraft, not Boeing 757s that can carry two hundred. So when heavy aircraft is flown by someone who hasn't so much as been in a simulator for that plane, whatsmore, at such a low altitude, isn't some struggle with the controls and a subsequent crash quite a big possibility? Can we really say for sure that the crash wasn't just a mishap? On that note, can we say for sure that Jarrah didn't just have second-thoughts? I mean, the shit is fucking nuts. In fact, the only evidence we do have here is that the auto-pilot was redirected to head in the direction of Washington D.C., another theory factualised by Clinton & Biden at the unveiling, which still isn't what one would call 'solid'.

See? If we happened to put this handful of victims on trial in any western court on charges for heroism, the jury would come back and read 'Not guilty! Not Guilty! Not guilty!'. The law system would use words like 'inconclusive','speculative' and 'heresay'. It would be like one not-guilty orgy down at that courthouse. So what I'm saying is that it's certainly quite possible that those passengers did ‘rush’ the cockpit and it's quite possible that the plane crashing into nothing is a precipitating factor of that; I won't lie, the evidence indeed points that way. In fact, you could say that I'm about ninety percent sure that’s what happened, but what I'm asking is this: is ninety percent really enough? Is it enough for two former US presidents and a former US Vice President to talk at a memorial unveiling like we can be a hundred percent certain of what occurred? I mean, a seed of doubt, no matter how miniscule, is still a seed of doubt. The dumbest part of any of these speeches was when Biden said ‘we are here to honour those whose courage made history’, if ninety percent is all you need to go down in the history, then I question the legitimacy of America’s history. The smartest part of the speeches, surprisingly, came from Bush when he used the phrase ‘most likely’ before speaking about the plane’s alleged target, which is something that each speaker should have said before pretty much saying anything regarding United Flight 93. It's just really childish to try and put some sort of positive spin on this just because people have lost their lives, especially when the positive spin is potentially a fallacy. I don't care what anybody says - Obama, Bush, Billy Bob - remember this: there is and only ever will be enough evidence available to support a theory here, not a fact.

>> Clinton & Bush Speech Snippets

No comments:

Post a Comment