The flight that fought Back
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=141603
Printed Date: 23 November 2025 at 3:37am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: The flight that fought Back
Posted By: impulse!
Subject: The flight that fought Back
Date Posted: 11 September 2005 at 11:20pm
|
Who's going to watch it? I am, I am just hoping it not over dramatized too a point it almost unbelivable. Anywho it seems like something interesting to watch. ------------- 
|
Replies:
Posted By: bravecoward
Date Posted: 11 September 2005 at 11:22pm
| they make the terrorist look too scared imo |
Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 11 September 2005 at 11:23pm
|
Seemed like everything they showed could have happened. I know if I was
on that plane I would have tried to convince everyone to strike earlier.
------------- 
|
Posted By: impulse!
Date Posted: 11 September 2005 at 11:23pm
|
Too scared or too scary? -------------
|
Posted By: PlentifulBalls
Date Posted: 11 September 2005 at 11:27pm
|
Heh, i think my mom was watching that.
------------- 
sporx wrote: well...ya i prolly will be a virgin till i'm at least 30. |
Posted By: bravecoward
Date Posted: 11 September 2005 at 11:28pm
| like when they started charging they look like they wet their pants, i mean they are terriost ready to die. |
Posted By: phillll227
Date Posted: 11 September 2005 at 11:37pm
|
I liked it a lot
I had chills a few times watching it ------------- |
Posted By: blackdog144
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 1:24am
i didnt get to see it 
------------- http://imageshack.us">  
|
Posted By: impulse!
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 1:37am
|
Pretty sad when the guy barely made the flight. -------------
|
Posted By: Enos Shenk
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 2:40am
They probably were scared. Terrorists are just brainwashed cowards. ------------- 
|
bravecoward wrote:Posted By: bluemunky42
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 6:15am
|
i think i would have fainted in fear, whether i was a terrorist or a passenger. i am not used to handling that kind of...emotion, i guess you could call it. ------------- 
http://www.freewebs.com/hazedinsanity - http://www.freewebs.com/hazedinsanity |
Posted By: Mephistopheles
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 1:49pm
Brainwashed, of course. But not scared. They truly believe the cause they are willing to die for is greater than their own life. They are quite willing and able to sacrifice themselves for, in their minds, the greater good. Personally I don't think anybody will really know what actually happened with the entire Sept 11th situation until another 100 years passes. Sort of like how documents surface from Pearl Harbor to indicate that the United States wasn't necessarily surprised by the attack. Well, should rephrase. The citizens were sure surprised but certain gov't officials weren't. So I saw this as just Discovery trying to capitalize on the situation before all the real facts are even there. They tend to put a lot of myths and legends up as absolute facts. Sorry but I laughed during their Nostradamous special, most info in there was either garbage or just myths that have never been proven (but they still try to pass it off as general facts found in textbooks). *edit* Though that does bring up a good thought. I remember somebody stating that we, the US, would go after countries that were shown to harbor and aid terrorists. What happened to that little ramble? ------------- http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=166647&PN=1"> 
|
Posted By: .Ryan
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 1:53pm
|
Saw that last night, really good imho. Parts of it really got to me....
-------------  |
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 1:53pm
|
The US fighter jets took that Plane out, their actions, if there were any, were made pointless by the US fighter planes blowin that sucker out of the sky. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors"> 
|
Posted By: holysmartone
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 3:04pm
| ^Disagree. Even though their actions may have been pointless, those people are real heros. They were willing to risk everything to save others lives. Thats a real hero in my book. |
Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 3:32pm
Their actions were far from pointless. Even if the plane were to be taken down by interceptors, the fact that they did what they did, when they did, saved lives. While they probably had no control over where the plane went down... their actions brought the plane down in an open field. Limiting damage/casualties to those on board. There is no telling where the plane would have gone down had it been downed by a fighter. And while it may seem insignificant... there are two very important psychological factors. 1. The mental well-being of the fighter pilot forced to kill innocent American civilians. 2. The impact of a US Fighter shooting down a US airliner on the American psyche. It would have been a double victory for the terrorists. Given their actions, at the very least we can think upon one positive note: that there were heroic passengers on board who were willing to go balls to the wall. Had the plane been shot down... there would be no positive notes whatsoever. And with a tragedy such as this, even the slightest bit of positivity matters. I didn't watch the program, but I do hope to catch it sometime, if it's replayed. |
Posted By: bluemunky42
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 4:09pm
|
^well said. those men/women who fought the hijackers on board definitely helped save lives. if they had just frozen up and done nothing (which is what i'm sure i would have done) then there's no telling how many people that plane could have killed. but they manned up and valiantly fought back. -------------
http://www.freewebs.com/hazedinsanity - http://www.freewebs.com/hazedinsanity |
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 4:53pm
|
They didnt help save any lives. It wasnt anyone but the US airforce that took that plane down. That plane would have gone down with, or without the actions of the passengers. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">
|
Posted By: bluemunky42
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 4:55pm
|
they did so help. (i believe) they fought the terrorists at the controls and caused enough of a disturbance that they disturbed them from crashing into any important place. the air force only finished the job. -------------
http://www.freewebs.com/hazedinsanity - http://www.freewebs.com/hazedinsanity |
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 4:57pm
|
Their actions didnt matter. The two F-16s intercepted them and took them down, this would have happened with or without acts of heroism. I know the pilots that flew that day. I met them at a function 3 years ago.
I feel it is better to let the public think they died a heroic death, went down swinging so to speak, than to let the American Public know that the US blew 300 some odd american citizens to smitherines. Its something people cant handel. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">
|
Posted By: Jim Paint
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 4:58pm
|
Wow, am I realy late or reading the post wrong? I didn't think the Air Force brought that Pennsylvania one down. ------------- 
saepe fidelis |
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 5:01pm
|
Yeah. They sure did. A bunch of people i know, some oficers, and some civilians saw them streak over head. Then, 15 minutes later or whatnot, the plane mysteriously falls out of the sky. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">
|
Posted By: Bango
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 5:09pm
|
There were two F-16's in the air after the Towers were hit. That doesn't mean that they shot it down though.
------------- http://imageshack.us"> 
|
Posted By: southernboy51
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 5:14pm
|
will it come on again? if so what channel |
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 5:19pm
They took it down. Ive spoken with a lot of people that know about this sort of thing, people that worked in the offices that were hit, helicopter pilots and the pilots in those planes. The pilots themselves couldnt give me a straight answer, but everyone else said they took that plane down. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">
|
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 5:22pm
| That sounds an awful lot like one of them there conspiracy theories... |
Posted By: southernboy51
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 5:24pm
|
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 5:25pm
|
Yep. But look at it from their families point of view. Would you rather have them remembered as heros? Or collateral demage during a national emergency? The government is having a heart, and letting people beleive the best. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">
|
Posted By: Hades
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 5:39pm
|
Why wouldnt the pilot that took down the plane come forward and sell his story for 100 million dollars to the media?
Sure beats pilot pay... ------------- 
|
Posted By: WGP guy
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 5:39pm
|
Alright let me show you guys something. They said the closest
F-16s were 160 miles away. They probably would have used AIM-9
(sidewinder) missles that have a maximum range of 10 miles and go
approx mach 3 (2305.5 mph). The F-16 has a maximum speed of 1288
mph. Lets assume that the F-16s flew 150 miles to come within
sidewinder range. That means it took the F-16s 6 minutes 59.4
seconds to get within firing range of the aircraft. If they fired
the AIM-9s that very moment the AIM-9s would reach the target in approx
15.6 seconds. Thats a total time of 7 minutes 15 seconds for the
F-16s to engage and destory the target from their current distance. If an F-15 was sent to the target assuming it was at the same distance (160 miles) and firing an AIM-9 it would have taken 5 minutes 47 seconds to engage and destroy the target. IMO the best aircraft to send was an F-14. If it was from the same distance from the target. Although the F-14 is slower than the F-15 at 1584 mph , it is the only aircraft that can fire an AIM-54 Pheonix*, 100 mile range, speed is 3000 mph. That means with the F-14 flying for 60 miles it would take 2.27 minutes. Then for the pheonix to travel the 100 miles and hit the target it would take 2.0 minutes. Thats 4.27 minutes for engagement. Anyway I'm trying to show that the F-16s probably didn't shoot the plane down. They said that some people thought that, not that it was official. |
Posted By: Frank Zappa
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 5:44pm
And whats wrong with a good conspiracy? If someone tells me the government lied, Im gonna believe it. ------------- It's all a conspiracy. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Edgar+Cayce&btnG=Google+Search - Edgar Cayce >you |
Posted By: Frank Zappa
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 5:45pm
How much of a plane would be left? ------------- It's all a conspiracy. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Edgar+Cayce&btnG=Google+Search - Edgar Cayce >you |
Posted By: holysmartone
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 5:51pm
|
^Good point. I saw quite a bit of wreckage there, Im not really sure as to how plane a missle would leave to be wreckage... Also, Dbib, there was not 300 people on the plane, there was hardly 50. |
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 5:53pm
|
I dont know how many people where on it. But, i dont think they put it down themselves, those two jets took it down. Coulda been anything from a Dud missle to standard bullets. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">
|
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 5:56pm
|
But is there any actual evidence that the plane was shot down? Or is this theory based on speculation and innuendo? Where's the beef? |
Posted By: WGP guy
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 5:58pm
|
Clark and DBib read my post At least the first and last paragraph, I'm trying to show that the F-16s did now shoot the plane down. |
Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 6:00pm
|
While I personally don't buy the shootdown theory, there would probably be plenty of plane left... depending on the weapon used. AIM-9 Sidewinder... would take out an engine, as the IR seeker would bring it right to that specific part. Rest of the plane could still remain in the air for quite a while. It's not like a movie where the entire plane disintegrates before your eyes.
Korean Air Lines flight 007 was shot down in 1983 over the Soviet Union. Reports have it flying for two minutes before crashing, after being hit by two air-to-air missiles. I still don't buy the shootdown theory. Is it possible? Sure, I won't rule it out. One or more of the Langley based Falcons would have made it to Flight 93. Eyewitness accounts have not convinced me of a shootdown however. Especially considering most witnesses on the ground have claimed a "white" military aircraft was on scene after the crash, and have ID'd it as an A-10. Comparing a Falcon to a ThunderboltII is like comparing a Testarossa to an Excursion. You can't confuse the two. Aside from that, the fact that no real evidence has been presented has me skeptical of such a conspiracy. A secret of that magnitude on a topic under intense public scrutiny is too hard to keep. In any case... IF the plane had been shot down, then yes, the actions of the passengers would be somewhat mooted... but their actions are still worthy of mention and admiration. Even if THEY themselves did not succeed... they TRIED. Which is more than many Americans these days do when facing disaster. |
Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 6:07pm
One thing... do not compare real-world events and performance to the claimed performance capabilities of the aircraft involved. Had interceptors been flying at maximum rated speed... it wouldn't have taken the Eagles out of Otis, and the Falcons out of Langley to reach their stations over NYC and DC. How a fighter and it's pilots perform on paper and how they perform in reality are very different... especially when considering any orders restricting their usage, as there are when flying over home soil (or anywhere). In this case, no fighter would have been more capable than another. Had it been an Eagle, Falcon, Tomcat or Hornet... any/all would have the same capabilities in this case. Yes, the Phoenix has an over-the-horizon capability... but two problems... the Phoenix has been phased out of service, and there is no way in hell, no matter what the circumstance, that a fighter would take out a target without actual VISUAL identification. One thing I did find a little disturbing... and a true sign that the Pentagon believes the Cold War was over... there were no alert fighters at Andrews. That blows my mind. The first armed Falcons scrambled out of Andrews were scrambled WAY late in the game, and were armed with training rounds for the M61A1 and no AAMs. Actually, I believe the very first Falcon up wasn't armed at all! Simply unbelievable. |
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 6:07pm
|
Yep. Ive spoken with people that saw these two jets take off to intercept flight 93, people that were on their way to Roslyn after the attack. People said and i quot. "That plane was shot down, thats what I would have done, It's pretty cut and dry, by the book."- Major Naughta
While I aplaud the men and women of flight 93 for their efforts, and Im also saddened by the tragic loss of life, i cant accept that they brought that plane down. I also very seriously doubt they were able to overtake the terrorists. These men were proficient in edged weapon combat, these are soldiers against civilians, i dont know how plausable it would be that they overtook and subdued armed soldiers with cups of hot water. But again, i applaud them for their efforts. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">
|
Posted By: WGP guy
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 6:09pm
I realize it would be more probably for teh missles to hit the engines, but it is probable that they hit the fusolauge(sp?) or wing(s). The missles aren't going to pinpoint the area of highest heat, they are going to hit in the area. Along with that, the 25 lbs of explosives would have done more than kill the engine. They probably would have ripped off the engine and part of the wing. Regarding the second paragraph, the A-10 shoots 30mm (can't remember if its 20 or 30) tungsten with mercury on them, that means when it hits something its going to rip a hole in it no matter what. If an A-10 held a 2 second burst of fire (the recoil of the gun is more than the thrust of the engines, so 2 seconds is generally max amount of time the gun is fired at a time) and the pilot put all teh rounds into the plane, thats 100-140 bullets that were shot into the plane. I'm sure that would rip it apart as well. |
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 6:11pm
|
Whats this about an A-10, there were two F-16s. I doubt there was any A-10, none in the area, they are all overseas. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">
|
Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 6:13pm
|
Witnesses say Flight 93 was relatively intact on it's way down. Use of guns would have brought reports of stray rounds landing somewhere... or shell casings... or witnesses hearing fire. I've seen A-10s on the strafing range first-hand... you'll hear that fire. I've seen F-4Es on the strafing range first hand (same 20mm M61 as the -16) you'll also hear that upon firing, and stray rounds would hit somewhere.
Fuselage hit with AAM... would be smoke in the sky, trail of flame/smoke on the way down. Wasn't any. DB... witnesses that saw the take-offs... from Langley? Or from Andrews? If from Andrews, then we can rule out AAM altogether as the DCANG birds were armed with nothing but TP rounds. |
Posted By: WGP guy
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 6:15pm
The whole purpose of the Pheonix (well mostly) was for the Tomcat to be able to engage enemies without even seeing them. And about the aircraft not being ready that disturbs me too. What happened to the Civil Air Patrol. What happened to the planes that are supposed to be ready to go at any time. Its too bad we didn't have a carrier leaving that day, I'm sure they would have had interceptors up faster than the F-16s got up in the air. |
Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 6:16pm
MD ANG has A-10s stationed near the shore... I forget the name of the airfield. PA ANG has A-10s stationed at Willow Grove. Amongst others. |
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 6:16pm
|
Sorry, Ive been saying take off out of lazeyness, they saw them fly over head, check damage at the pentagon and then fly north.
These people were on the beltway side of the pentagon, they didnt see the jets taxi or really take off. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">
|
Posted By: WGP guy
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 6:16pm
Exactly, I was just trying to show what could/would have happened had the aircraft been there faster. I wasn't saying it did happen. |
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 6:17pm
|
Unless Major Naughta was IN one of those planes, or was in the chain of command to issue the order to shoot, then this is not meaningful evidence. This is just a speculation/opinion. The opinion of a well-placed individual, but an opinion nevertheless. I see opinions uttered by well-placed talking heads on CNN every day, and they are wrong - A LOT. I need more beef than that. |
Posted By: Frank Zappa
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 6:17pm
|
I'm gonna say they used the "aircraft" that theyre testing in the New Mexico desert.
------------- It's all a conspiracy. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Edgar+Cayce&btnG=Google+Search - Edgar Cayce >you |
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 6:18pm
I was under the impression we didnt have any nearby, at any rate, i dont think we have any white warthogs. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">
|
Posted By: WGP guy
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 6:18pm
Pope Air Force Base (right beside Fort Bragg, about 45 minutes from me) have A-10s and C-130s stationed there. They used to have falcons there but one of the C-130 pilots told me they had a collision between a falcon and a C-130s. They switched because the A-10s are much slower than the falcon, less chance of a collision. |
Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 6:18pm
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 6:19pm
|
I don't like people calling them heros. They were in it more for themselves then possible victims.
Plus.. how much guts does it take to rush an idiot with a 2" box cutter? 39 passengers on board.. only a handful of terrorist... you do the math. Now, for the movie.. they are making a whole thing out of it when the 'fight' took only a minute? ------------- 
|
Posted By: holysmartone
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 6:20pm
Sorry, my BS alarm went off on this, so I quickly researched your point. And, not suprisingly, found we were knee deep in BS.
|
Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 6:22pm
|
Posted By: WGP guy
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 6:25pm
Hmm, well I was told by one of the pilots that if the guns were fired to long it would slow the aircraft down to a stop. I didn't mean it was equal (even though thats what I said), I meant that the continous fire would eventually slow the plane down to where the recoil was greater. |
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 6:26pm
|
Yeah i dont think any A-10s were scrambled, they are pretty slow beasts arent they? But the F-16 were prowling around. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">
|
Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 6:28pm
Whether they did it for themselves, or did it to save others is not of significance. Had they not found out the other planes were used in attacks, they would have sat in their seats and rode it out... as most are instructed to do in a hijack situation when the hijackers claim to have a bomb. They did something. Regardless as to whether they succeeded or failed, or what really brought down the flight, their actions were heroic. |
Posted By: Frank Zappa
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 6:29pm
I am also venturing to say that the government is using fluorine in toothpaste as a reciever for their mind altering devices. (they are used everywhere from altering the pennsylvania witnessess to not seeing the "secret aircraft" to the test flights acroos the country. And I suspect they use fluorine as the trigger, because that would explain almost all rednecks as the sighters of bigfoot and UFO's, as the mind altering device has no affect. ------------- It's all a conspiracy. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Edgar+Cayce&btnG=Google+Search - Edgar Cayce >you |
Posted By: WGP guy
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 6:30pm
I'm gonna have to go with shorty on this one. Linus that comment was not very intelligent. Like shorty said I would like to see you rush someone who has a box cutter. |
Posted By: bluemunky42
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 6:33pm
the History channel did a video tour of all over that place, it was a weather balloon. -------------
http://www.freewebs.com/hazedinsanity - http://www.freewebs.com/hazedinsanity |
Posted By: Frank Zappa
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 6:35pm
And Clark Kent is a guy...... ------------- It's all a conspiracy. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Edgar+Cayce&btnG=Google+Search - Edgar Cayce >you |
Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 6:35pm
|
beyond the boxcutter debate...
Saying someone is not heroic simply based on the fact that their actions had just as much emphasis on self-preservation as the preservation of others is akin to saying every soldier on the battlefield taking out an emplacement under fire is not heroic, because that emplacement endangered their lives too. Heroism is not merely self-sacrifice. Actions you might deem as self-serving can be just as heroic. |
Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 6:55pm
And if you excuse me... I have a phone call to make. Ignore the black Lincoln that drives up to your driveway in the next few moments... |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 6:58pm
'Nuff said -------------
|
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 6:59pm
| Linus, this is one of those times when you should stop typing... |
Posted By: Pro_Carbine
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 7:01pm
|
i missed it i wanted to see it really bad. any one know when re run? ------------- 98c R/T Eggy w/ Z-Board Hpa Tank Double Trigger Drop Foward 12" Smart Parts Progresive Team Morelli Company "autococker with 40 inch hammerhead barrel mounted onto a flatline"-Lester98c LOL |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 7:03pm
YES, they did kill the pilots, YES they did have box cutters. But look, it was 39 passengers against 5 terrorist. If you don't think thats possible, or even plausable, then you need to learn new definitions for those words. You're saying I'm crazy for saying this, but apparently they DID do it, did they not? -------------
|
Posted By: WGP guy
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 7:11pm
|
(19:07:52) linus: no.. firefightrers are heros (19:07:56) linus: they put themselves into it (19:08:15) linus: but having someone try and svae their own life doesn't constitute as a hero, even more so since they didn't succeed Anyone else not understand the logic behind this? |
Posted By: Bango
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 7:17pm
Do you call soldiers heros? The people on board the plane and soldiers fighting a war are the same. Soldiers don't fight wars because they believe in the cause, they do it to keep eachother alive. And while doing so, they help a cause, but are probably more concerned about eachothers safety. The people on board the plane didn't take it back because they knew it was going to kill more people, they did it to save themselves. So by your logic, soldiers are not heros. ------------- http://imageshack.us">
|
Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 7:21pm
I see... so Linus, the passengers were nothing more than self-serving idiots that should be chastised for lack of prior action. Right.
So because they had a numerical advantage... their actions should not be deemed heroic? Because you can think about it after the fact, count with your fingers that there's a 10 to 1 advantage of passengers, know that the weapons were "mere" box cutters, know after the fact that there were never any explosives on board, and not take into consideration any of the true goings-on on board that aircraft... you'll lessen their actions for not taking action sooner, or for seemingly acting on their own behalf. OK then. Well, I suppose if their actions don't meet your personal definition of heroic, so be it. I can't help but wonder what person(s) you DO consider to be heroes, what actions you WOULD consider to be heroic, and how much picking-apart you did after the fact to reach those conclusions. A passenger risking his life to save himself, the others on the plane, and others on the ground is not a hero. I suppose a fireman running into a burning building to save someone isn't a hero either... he's just doing his job, it's expected of him, so it's not heroic. |
Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 7:28pm
Someone is not a hero because in the process of attempting to save others (on the plane/on the ground) they just so happen to be attempting to save themselves. More so because they fail. So... using the same firefighter analogy... a firefighter inside the second tower of the WTC rushes to exit the building after the first one collapses. Along the way he attempts to help others escape. But because in addition to helping those others, he is trying to help himself... and ultimately fails as the towers come crashing down on him... he's not a hero. Because he was trying to save himself... and moreso because he failed. |
Posted By: Hades
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 7:30pm
|
Going onstage and singing a bunch of music everyone hates except the people your playing for is Linus' type of hero.
Yes, I am putting words in your mouth and yes you never said it so you dont need to waste your time makinf a reply to point this out. -------------
|
Posted By: bluemunky42
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 7:32pm
agreed. i quote from blackhawk down: "once you're out there, in the fight, politics, and all that other <crap> just goes right out the window" -------------
http://www.freewebs.com/hazedinsanity - http://www.freewebs.com/hazedinsanity |
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 7:37pm
|
Do I really need to watch this show? In the show, do they kill the terrorists and land the plane safely. That would be so cool.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Cedric
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 7:40pm
|
They fly the plane over to candy mountain to sit with santa as the passengers enjoy a bowl of ice cream.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 7:41pm
|
Best. Ending. Ever. -------------
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 7:42pm
|
Shorty, must I say it once again.
They did fight back, did they not? So tell me where I'm wrong at saying they should have fought back? My opinion was that it was more for them then other people. This debate can go either way becasue you know what, not one of us was there. Not one of us know's what they were thinking. All we do know is that they did fight, and they died. Whether they completed their intended goal or not is up for grabs. -------------
|
Posted By: Cedric
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 7:46pm
|
They went to candy mounatin. The adventures they encountered there are
the only things unknown. I bet there are marvelous places on which to
go on adventures on candy mountain.
-------------
|
Posted By: bluemunky42
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 7:48pm
|
^i bet they ate cotton candy and lolipops there. -------------
http://www.freewebs.com/hazedinsanity - http://www.freewebs.com/hazedinsanity |
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 7:52pm
|
They hijacked the plane with sharpened candy canes and demanded they fly into the AquaFresh factory. -------------
|
Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 8:17pm
My argument is not over whether or not they should have fought. My argument is over the difficulty of fighting back, and whether those actions are heroic, or merely self-serving. My argument is that someone's actions should not be deprived of being defined as "heroic" simply because their own life was on the line. More often than not, someone's own life is on the line while carrying out action later deemed as heroic. What i see you saying is, given 39 (actually 34) passengers on the list, they shouldn't have given a second thought to fighting back, and that with their numbers... they should have succeeded. Forget that a good amount of those passengers were retirees and half were women. I'm sure 79yr old Hilda Marain could've taken out a terrorist. Or maybe 4'6" disabled 51yr old Colleen Frasier could have taken one out with the cane she needed for walking? 73yr old Jane Folger... I hold her personally accountable for her inaction. And Georgine Corrigan, the grandmother from Hawaii... how dare she not stand up to a 20-something year old with a blade! John Talignani... he was an Army man! Why didn't he save the day with that military experience? Who cares that he was 74, he should've stepped up to the plate! Yet all thirty four passengers let a couple of younger guys with blades (and bombs as far as they knew) take over the flight. I guess they're cowards, not heroes. Yeah, yeah... I know it's almost not worth arguing... each person has their own opinion of what is this, and what is that. At the end of the day, the dozen men who made an effort are still not heroes to you, and are to me. That's that, I guess. |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 8:23pm
|
Ok, let me rephrase.
Yes, the ones that acted are heros, in a sense. But I don't hold them nearly as high as the men and woman who went INTO the WTC, and you shouldn't either. -------------
|
Posted By: Frank Zappa
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 8:27pm
|
For anyone that doesnt get it. Linus thinks that if you benefit in anyway, you aren't a hero, you are just saving your own butt. ------------- It's all a conspiracy. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Edgar+Cayce&btnG=Google+Search - Edgar Cayce >you |
Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 8:37pm
And Frank... why are you still posting? The guys in the black Lincoln should have arrived to "re-educate" you on the whole concept of fluorine by now. |
Posted By: Dye Playa
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 8:41pm
|
it was shot down. i knew someone on the plane and he was a pilot, a very good one at that. him and his family(dad,brothers...) were all pilots and all worked for the same comapny, company manufacturing airplane parts, redesigning radar systems, new types of planes, and other gadgets for the planes. his father now planes like the back of his hand, and after seeing the plane crash, and the apparent angle it fell from the sky, it was shot down. the show didnt give an accurate show- the plane was turned around, probaly by the pilot i knew and was then shot down. as i said, he his dad has been flying his whole life and knows planes. it was shot down, and the cockpit was breeched ------------- 
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 8:50pm
|
In regards to Dye--- That might explain why witnesses say it flipped on it sides, but we will never know.
Frank- Umm.. who are you to think you know me? I didn't say that. Firefighters are heros, but they get paid, don't they? They get medals, do they not? -------------
|
Posted By: Frank Zappa
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 9:44pm
My granny blasted em away with her double barreled shotgun. Government aint nothin to rednecks that have been shootin at movin squirrels since they were 5. ------------- It's all a conspiracy. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Edgar+Cayce&btnG=Google+Search - Edgar Cayce >you |
Posted By: Frank Zappa
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 9:46pm
I was trying to explain your post to everyone, as thats the only way it made sense to me. If I interpreted your post wrong, I don't see how you are making any sense. ------------- It's all a conspiracy. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Edgar+Cayce&btnG=Google+Search - Edgar Cayce >you |
Posted By: Cedric
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 11:13pm
 -------------
|
Posted By: Darur
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 11:20pm
|
Fighters werent airborne until 20 min or so AFTER the plane went down
------------- Real Men play Tuba [IMG]http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1859/newsmall6xz.jpg"> PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf! http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/log_off_user.asp" rel="nofollow - DONT CLICK ME!!1 |
Posted By: Shub
Date Posted: 12 September 2005 at 11:30pm
|
I am jumping into this debate late, but I have insight to offer. I live 3 miles from the crash site of Flight 93. I did not personally see the jet on that day, there is a hillside that blocks my view of the south. I have many friends who actually saw the jet flying overhead near here before it crashed. I personally saw the crashsite before the State Police taped the area off as a crime sceen. I did not see the movie last night, so I don't know what was said or what wasn't said.
I have heard a lot of conspiracy theorists argue that the plane was shot down. I don't buy it. Not for a second. For one thing, there is a HUGE crater on the strip job where the plane went down. If that jet was struck with a missile, it would have broken up in air, and pieces would have scattered all over the place, for dozens of miles. Eyewitness accounts agree that the jet was intact and under it's own power until the crash. Had a missile been launched, it would have been targeted the jet's engines. Both engines were still running til it crashed. The only thing I have heard from the 'official' story that I disagree with is the speed of the crash. The reports say that the plane struck the ground at speeds in excess of 400 mph. All the locals agree that the jet was going abnormally slow, which is what attracted the most attention. The people who saw the plane in it's last miles of flight report having heard banging noises, which was the engines doing compressor stalls (when the engines backfire and stall for lack of combustion). I know I'm not going to change the minds of everyone here who knows a guy who knows a guy who knows the guy that shot the jet down. But until I have substantial proof that the jet was shot down, there is no evidence on the Laurel Highlands to support the claim. |
Posted By: Cedric
Date Posted: 13 September 2005 at 5:24pm
|
The kids are skipping! Just look!
-------------
|
Posted By: AgentWhale007!`
Date Posted: 13 September 2005 at 5:27pm
|
How did you come up with such a cool idea, Cedric? ------------- Paintball is lame.  |
Posted By: Cedric
Date Posted: 13 September 2005 at 5:28pm
|
You gave me the idea. Pretty much forced me to do it. Or it might have been the gatorade. Who knows.
-------------
|
Posted By: AgentWhale007!`
Date Posted: 13 September 2005 at 5:32pm
|
I did not force ye. Did ye get me PM? ------------- Paintball is lame. |
Posted By: Cedric
Date Posted: 13 September 2005 at 5:32pm
|
No.
-------------
|
Posted By: AgentWhale007!`
Date Posted: 13 September 2005 at 5:47pm
|
Now ya did. ------------- Paintball is lame. |
Posted By: bluemunky42
Date Posted: 13 September 2005 at 6:19pm
 you never give up -------------
http://www.freewebs.com/hazedinsanity - http://www.freewebs.com/hazedinsanity |