Skepticism and Flight 93
What thought process led you to your conclusion about the cause of Flight 93's crash?
Filed under Conspiracies
| Skeptoid #22 January 19, 2007 Podcast transcript | Listen | Subscribe |
|
By Brian Dunning, Skeptoid Podcast
Episode 22, January 19, 2007
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4022
Today we're going to talk about something that's perhaps still a little too near & dear to the hearts of some: Flight 93, the fourth aircraft on September 11 that crashed in Pennsylvania on its way to a target, taking the lives of all 44 people on board, including the 4 hijackers. I think it's appropriate that the subject be discussed only after acknowledging that it was first and foremost a human tragedy, in which a lot of valuable family people were lost, and that we hold their memory in great respect.
There are two basic theories about Flight 93. The first, which is the government's official version, is that the plane crashed. The competing theory, favored by conspiracy theorists because it's the one denied by the government, is that Flight 93 was shot down by our own fighter planes.
Many discussions of Flight 93 that purport to be skeptical either choose one side or the other, and argue in favor of it, claiming that the competing theory is implausible, and citing all sorts of evidence in favor of whichever version they support. Well, that's not skepticism. Trying to justify a preconceived notion is simply spreading propaganda. Skepticism means to follow a critical thought process, examine all of the evidence, and arrive at a supported conclusion. I like Flight 93 as a skeptical topic, because it reminds us of what Dr. Shermer says: Skepticism is not a position, it's a process.
Flight 93 is an interesting case because the version of events favored by conspiracy theorists is, for once, not wholly implausible. We know for a fact that fighter jets were scrambled and that some were on an intercept course with Flight 93, and we know for a fact that we were prepared to shoot down any passenger jets that we had to on that day.
The National Transportation Safety Board has only the following quote about the cause of Flight 93: "The Safety Board did not determine the probable cause and does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and any material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI." And, of course, whatever the FBI has determined is not publicly available, and certainly will not be at least until after their investigation is finished, and who knows when that will be if ever. So, in the lack of an authoritative explanation of the exact cause of Flight 93's crash, we can only do our best to study the available information ourselves. Let's look at four debated points.
1. The mysterious "white jet" circling the crash site.
There are reports of an unmarked white business jet circling the crash site. The official version is that controllers asked a nearby Falcon 20 business jet to descend and provide coordinates of the crash. This is corroborated by the pilot of the Falcon 20. Conspiracy theorists concede that fighter jets are not white, but they point to numerous examples of white business jets flown by the military and other government agencies, such as Customs, which they say could have been quickly armed with missiles. They also cite some reports of controllers saying that no other aircraft were in the vicinity, and that the eyewitness evidence of a white jet indicates that those controllers must be part of the conspiracy. The white jet tells us nothing about the cause of the crash.
2. Debris was found up to 8 miles away, fluttering down from the sky.
Conspiracy theorists say that this disproves the official version that has Flight 93 crash intact. However, the FBI has not released their official cause of the crash. There are at least two plausible explanations for this that don't require the plane being shot down. First, we know that the terrorists claimed to have a bomb on board. A bomb certainly could have blown a hole in the plane, releasing debris, and causing the subsequent crash. Second, the aircraft could have broken up in mid-air from aerodynamic stresses as it exceeded its maximum design speed (called the VNE). The FBI has said nothing about the cause of the crash; they have not claimed definitively that it was a controlled flight into terrain by the terrorist pilot or struggling passengers. Without access to the FBI analysis, the existence of secondary debris fields tell us nothing about the cause of the crash.
3. There is an alleged 3 minute discrepancy in the times.
The published cockpit transcript ends at 10:03 with the voices of the terrorists chanting "Allah is the greatest." The NTSB analysis of the flight data recorder, infrared satellite imagery, and some air traffic controllers agree with the 10:03 crash time. Cleveland air traffic control and some seismologists put the time of the crash at 10:06. My own research was not able to find what the clocks of cockpit voice recorders are synchronized to, if anything; if you know this answer for a fact, I'd appreciate your comments on the Skeptoid.com web site or in the forum. However, if a bomb celebrating Allah's greatness went off at 10:03, or if the aircraft suffered structural failure at 10:03, the voice recorder would be no less likely to be stopped as it would by a missile strike. The alleged missing 3 minutes tells us nothing about the cause of the crash.
4. Covering up a shootdown.
Think of all the people who must be involved with keeping track of air to air missiles. Obviously the pilot and any other pilots with him, the air boss and all the officers in the situation room, and anyone keeping an eye on the situation with radar, would know if a missile had been fired. This includes civilian controllers as well as military controllers, and anyone standing by the radar screen or at the local civilian airport's control tower water cooler talking to their girlfriend on the cellphone saying "You won't believe what just happened." September 11 was not a day when little attention was being paid to the radar screens. The airmen at the base who are responsible for loading and unloading missiles from the aircraft would know that a missile had been fired, as would their chain of command. The people who view and archive the electronic and video logs of the flight would know. Then you have the people who inventory and store the missiles - they'd know if ten went out and only nine came back. Military and civilian auditors verify these counts. Potentially thousands of people on the ground would have been in a position to see a missile being fired. Hundreds of people were on the ground at the crash site picking up wreckage, possibly including missile fragments, cataloging it, identifying it, and storing it. Let's say you disagree with me that any large number of people might be able to know that a missile had been fired. I ask you, what then is the smallest number? Fifty people at the air force base and through the chain of command? Forty? Nobody on the ground at all, or in the NTSB? That's hard for me to believe, but it's harder still to believe that even such a large number of people as that could be adequately paid off with nobody at any bank knowing it, or could be threatened by mysterious Men In Black, without a single whistle blower — especially when you consider how broadly unpopular the war on terror has become.
For my money, the official version of the incidents is consistent with my own knowledge of aviation and all sounds plausible. I also can't get past what, to me, is the implausibility of covering up a shootdown. Your own mileage may vary. But regardless of your own conclusion, better that you look at the situation with skepticism rather than with a preconceived notion, and don't base your judgment on politics or emotion, as so many people do.
There's one school of thought that says it doesn't matter how Flight 93 ended. The terrorists killed everyone on board, regardless of the details. Ultimately the terrorists are to blame, no matter the cause of the crash. Then there's the viewpoint that whether the government lied has everything to do with it: that if we can't trust our own government, how can we ever feel truly safe under its protection? Deciding what's important to you is a question for every individual to answer on his own. The skeptical process can lead to the truth of what happened, but only you can answer what truths are important.
© 2007 Skeptoid Media, Inc.
References & Further Reading
9/11 Commission. The 9/11 Commission Report. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc, 2004.
Dunbar, D., Regan, B. Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts. New York: Hearst Books, 2006.
Heltzel, Bill, Gibb, Tom. "2 planes had no part in crash of Flight 93." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. 16 Sep. 2001, Newspaper: A.10.
NTSB. "DCA01MA060." National transportation safety board. US Government, 3 Jul. 2006. Web. 19 Oct. 2009. <http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20020123X00103&key=1>
Wagner, M., McCall, K. "Plane Damaged Before Crash." Dayton Daily News. 14 Sep. 2001, Newspaper: 6A.
Reference this article:
Dunning, B.
"Skepticism and Flight 93." Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, Inc.,
19 Jan 2007. Web.
24 May 2013. <http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4022>
Discuss!
10 most recent comments | Show all 92 comments
In my previous posts I have shown how Hanjour's general lack of ability as a pilot and the questions surrounding his gaining two licences in the first place cast doubt on his capability to have driven Fl77 into the Pentagon.
The "surveillance flights" pre-911 taken by the four 911 pilots, mentioned in the commission report as somehow helping them on the day find their way to their targets, is a well-written piece of fabricated nonsense.
Moving on to examining the NTSB reports more closely, something which has struck me as strange is the lack of any violent or sudden aerial manoeuvres of Fl77 during the time of the alleged hijackers' takeover.
In the report which is brief but clear, the flight path has proceeded smoothly with the only
indication anything was wrong the turning to an off-course heading.
In fact, Fl's 11, 175, and 77 are the same in this respect.
The only flight of the four to show any signs of violent manoeuvring is Fl93.
When we inspect the wiki on Fl77 we read that the hijackers stormed the cockpit, where an ex navy top gun was in command. I am sure he would never have given up his aircraft and his passengers without a struggle.
I am also sure that two trained and determined "muscle" hijackers to each pilot, armed with knives and cutters, could eventually overpower the pilots, but in the confined space of a B757 flight deck, for no signs of the control columns, rudder pedals, or any of multiple switches to be knocked aside, is very strange indeed.
Macky, Auckland
February 20, 2013 10:57am
So your argument is just a mishmash of meaningless nitpicking, paranoid conspiracy theory and 'doesn't it seem strange that..." then?
I had higher expectations than a 'FEMA concentration camps/martial law/coup d'etat" argument from you, Macky. If that was the intention behind 9/11 it's sure taking them a long time to get round to it. After all, the best time to do it would have been straight after, not 12+ years and a change of Administration later.
Darren, Liverpool, UK
February 20, 2013 1:26pm
After 9-11, and while the shock of the attacks was still deeply felt, the Administrations of the US and UK DID move quickly into a wartime mode, with endless repetitions of WPE from Bush and Blair.
There is still war in Iraq after no WPE found, Saddam and Osama gone. Why?
In the meantime, I am skeptical of the official 9-11 story of Fl77.
1) Hanjour's training, or lack of.
2) The difficulty of FL77 itself, combined with Hanjour's record of incompetence.
3) Finding himself for the first (and last) time on the flight deck of a B757, and managing to turn the plane in the near-perfect direction of Washington, out of sight over the horizon, and from 35000 feet.
3) The apparent overpowering of two pilots, one a veteran navy pilot, without any noticeable flight disturbances.
4) The apparently dismal performance of the USAF on the day.
5) The only vid released publicly of the car-park entrance of Fl77 impact with the Pentagon, obviously faked.
6) The continued withholding of Pentagon cam footage despite commission report final conclusions years ago.
7) Pentagon damage inconsistent with (only) a B757 on the angle it was supposed to have flown in.
If after all that, you regard the above as a mishmash of meaningless nitpicking, then it's obvious that you and anyone else that endorses the official version of Fl77 are ready to believe anything at all, providing it's come from US govt.
I've provided proof that the US govt is not to be trusted.
And evidence why it should not be.
Macky, Auckland
February 20, 2013 9:37pm
Skeptics require evidence of assertions or speculations.
I'm skeptical of the official story of Fl77 on 9-11 day, and have provided solid circumstantial evidence for that skepticism.
On the other hand, the commission and NTSB reports, and wiki have provided no evidence whatsoever in support of their official version.
No evidence that Hanjour was trained and competent enough to fly the B757 in the manner the story says he did.
No evidence that the hijacking occurred in the manner the official story says it did.
No evidence whatsoever that Fl77 impacted the Pentagon. Debris and "remains" whisked away and "identified" at another site.
No proof therefore that said remains came from the Pentagon, or what the Pentagon debris actually was from.
Eyewitnesses cannot say for sure that it was Fl77 because of the alleged speed of the aircraft incoming.
No evidence whatsoever of the Fl77 B757 because cam footage of the Pentagon approach is still withheld by the FBI. The only vid frame(s) showing impact from the parking lot entrance is faked. The aircraft shown in the middle frame of the three on wiki is not an AA B757.
The 9-11 commission and NTSB reports have in fact NO evidence to support them.
The only "evidence" is what we've been told, put forward by a proven untrustworthy govt.
To embrace such a story as the truth without any evidence is certainly not being skeptical, nor is it using one's critical thinking.
It's simply the acceptance of a belief, nothing more.
Macky, Auckland
February 21, 2013 1:39pm
I put down a challenge to the skeptics and critical thinkers among the posters to Skeptoid that hold to the official version of Flight 77 as being correct.
I challenge them to provide evidence which supports the official version of Fl77, 9-11 i.e. that Hani Hanjour and four other terrorists commandeered Flight 77, then Hanjour shortly after flew the B757 into the Pentagon.
I am not asserting that Fl77 did NOT collide with the Pentagon, but what I assert is that there is no proof of it, except for what we are told by Authority, or "spokesman says".
So far, I have had one or two reasonable arguments which I have been able to refute, a strawman from three scientists (shootdowns), various over-emotional opinions without any evidential counters, and implied names such as "idiot" etc.
All this on a site for skeptical analysis and critical thinking.
I challenge the skeptics and critical thinkers on Skeptoid to provide evidence for Flight 77 official version, that such evidence will prove that their assertions that official-Fl77 are correct are NOT nothing more than a simple belief that the US govt has told the truth regarding this incident.
Macky, Auckland
February 23, 2013 2:38pm
Further evidence for skepticism of the official version of Fl77.
NTSB reports that about 4 minutes after the last radio call the plane started a turn, ending up facing the way it came.
The autopilot remained engaged during the turn and was still on when a slight course change was initiated 12 minutes later.
Hanjour, without any training in a B757 has apparently had the skills to be able to program the autopilot to the near-correct course, from firstly 35000ft, then a slight adjustment at 25000 feet, directly to Washington, out of sight over the horizon.
This from a pilot who in a B737 simulator early that year was asked to quit, but in 3 months "completed the initial training", whatever that means.
In a B737 sim. not a B757 (pages 226-227)
35 miles out from the Pentagon, the autopilot is disconnected.
At 3.5 miles out, and at 7000ft Hanjour allegedly makes a high-performance descending 330 degree turn, levelling out at approx 2000ft, then makes a final run at the Pentagon, nearly at zero height in the last stages, to hit the Pentagon at the very best place to do the least damage while still hitting the building, when he could have simply descended steeply, forgoing the risky turn, and aimed Fl77 at 29 acres of rooftop, the biggest bullseye in the world, doing far more damage and destruction.
This from a pilot who was refused further solo flights only a short time before, in light aircraft, because of concerns about his poor piloting skills (page242)
Not b.. likely.
Macky, Auckland
March 03, 2013 1:59am
And breath...
Thanks Macky. Being always the doubting Tom, I think credit must be given there. If I were a Crazed Jihadist,and trust me, be glad I'm not, I wouldn't pick the 9th of Sept 2001 to attack your Xian/Zion country.
Neither would I hit the Pehtagon~such symmetry!
No, for me,the obvious time, to be cruel would be Xmas and I would have hit the White House.
9/11 emergency, emergency!
What a friggin joke!
Griff, uk
March 30, 2013 11:29pm
Obviously they should have asked you first, Griff.
Darren, Liverpool, UK
April 04, 2013 4:05am
Yup Darren, I didnt notice his submission to the enquiry either..but I do note conspiracist sites reproducing our correspondents original posts back in 2006.
Its despicable that they copy our skeptoiders I say!
Mud, sin city
May 19, 2013 6:34am
Make a comment about this episode of Skeptoid (please try to keep it brief & to the point). Anyone can post:
You can also discuss this episode in the Skeptoid Forum, hosted by the James Randi Educational Foundation, or join the Skeptalk email discussion list.
What's the most important thing about Skeptoid?
![[Valid RSS]](/images/valid-rss-rogers.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
When one looks at the overall picture of events post-911, it becomes increasingly evident why the belief of US govt involvement in this 21st century version of a "day of infamy" is so strong in so many people.
While those that hold to the official version of events of 9-11 continue to make excuses for the American govt agencies and armed forces, in their failure to heed warnings of impending terrorist activity, and seemingly incompetent reactions to a most serious man-made national emergency, others see clearly the ongoing war in the middle east, and more and more repressive laws against US citizens enacted in the homeland, as something more sinister.
The US since 9-11 is beginning to resemble Nazi Germany in the early 30's, Homeland Security's purchase of large amounts of arms and ammunition (who are they going to fight?), laws that give the President executive powers (Hitler?), and indefinite detention without trial or charge.
The spectre of a great number of prison camps, whether true or not, adds to the impression of a fascist state, reinforced by other virtual treasonous actions by the President such as seeking bi-partisan support for 11m illegal immigrants to gain citizenship.
Will they be used only to take US citizens' jobs?
Doesn't it seem strange that if the 9-11 Commission report was supposed to be the last word on what really happened, the FBI still retain footage of the Fl77 fly-into the Pentagon? Why?
To some it's obvious, but still not to many.
Macky, Auckland
February 18, 2013 11:09am