Cartoonist Ted Rall: "Knee-Jerk Liars"

[Woody Box]

The Legend of United Flight 93


NEW YORK--On the first anniversary of the crash of United Airlines Flight 93, Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge delivered a speech at the site of the disaster in western Pennsylvania. "Faced with the most frightening circumstances one could possibly imagine," he told grieving relatives of the passengers and crewmembers aboard the fourth plane hijacked on 9/11, "they met the challenge like citizen soldiers, like Americans." He recited the now-familiar story of passengers learning by phone about the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, deciding to fight back and breaking into the cockpit--a heroic act that led to their own deaths while sparing countless others in Washington.

...


The legend of Flight 93 had everything a nation caught with its pants down needed to feel better about itself: guts, heroism, self-sacrifice. Best of all, it was marketable--by Hollywood and by a president willing to surf on a kind of heroism notably absent from his own life. (Theatrical release of the second "United 93" movie is scheduled to open April 28.) Lisa Beamer, widow of the passenger credited with the call-to-arms "let's roll," wrote a bestselling book by the same name, applied for a trademark on the expression, and is now working the Christianist lecture circuit.

...

Another eyebrow-raising portion of the official account of Flight 93 states that "the passengers and flight crew began a series of calls from GTE airphones and cellular phones" after the hijacking. Ever forgotten to turn off your cellphone during a flight? I have. Try it yourself: Cellular telephone calls tend to drop when you're driving at 60 miles per hour; passenger jets travel up to ten times that speed. Moreover, there's zero signal, and thus no ability to place a call, above 8,000 feet. Flight 93, en route from Newark to San Francisco at a cruising altitude of 35,000 feet, dropped 700 feet when it was hijacked at 9:28 am. Cell calls? Not likely.

...

Flight 93 "headed down...rolled onto its back," and crashed, leaving a smoldering crater. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette again: " Fleegle said he climbed on the roof of an abandoned cabin and tossed down a burning seat cushion that had landed there. By Wednesday morning, crash debris began washing ashore at the marina. Fleegle said there was something that looked like a rib bone amid pieces of seats, small chunks of melted plastic and checks." Seats and bones don't fly two and a half miles from a crash. Their location could indicate an initial explosion, such as that from a missile hitting a plane.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucru/kneejerkliars

[QuettaKid]

1. It had to be shot down.

Imagine if the passengers had managed to get into the cockpit and taken control of the plane....assuming of course they could have overridden the Global Hawk technology. Not bloody likely.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

2. Two comments or questions:

1) I have used a cell phone in a plane at high altitude. I had no idea I was so fortunate to have a signal. Other folks around me were using them too.

2) If the government admitted the Cheney gave the order to shoot it down, why would they be uncomfortable admitting it got shot down?

[MadMaddie]

5. Because Cheney is not the President....

They had to coverup for the inaction and cowardice of *....and to admit he was not on top of the situation....would have been suicidal.....

Everything about 9/11 was too packaged for me....

[TallahasseeGrannie]

6. You know, I never thought of that

duh..it does make W look kind of wussy.

I don't know about 9/11. I've read both sides of the story. My sticking point is how did we get military pilots to commit suicide into those buildings? Someone here mentioned drones, but I asked a cousin in the Air Force and he said we are a long way away from that level of technology..that to hit those buildings just right would require something we don't have.

Of course, you also have to wonder where the "real" planes went. I keep picturing a scenario from the TV show Lost or something.

I also saw a video about it where they made a big deal that one of the WTC planes (second one) looked like it shot a missile into the building before it hit. But why would they need to shoot a missile when they were the biggest missile, loaded with fuel?

Very confusing.

[Woody Box]

8. Here's where the real planes went (at least one of them)

The Cleveland Airport Mystery

[QuettaKid]

9. you wouldn't NEED military pilots to commit suicide.

It's called Global Hawk technology. April,2001 remote controlled flight from US to Australia. Piloted from the ground.

""In April 2001, Global Hawk made aviation history when it completed the first non-stop flight across the Pacific Ocean by an unmanned, powered aircraft, flying from Edwards AFB, California, to the Royal Australian Air Force Base, Edinburgh, South Australia. Global Hawk successfully participated in a series of exercises with the RAAF, the Royal Australian Navy and the US Navy. Guinness World Records has recognised the flight as the longest (13,840 km) by a full-scale unmanned aircraft. In August 2003, Global Hawk became the first UAV to receive authorisation from the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to fly in national airspace.""

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/global/

[rinsd]

15. Where are the people then?

Are they in hiding? Were they killed on mass at the airport after being dorpped off?

There's are alot of problems with the so called official story, but the drones story is a bunch of bullshit.

[QuettaKid]

17. You misunderstand.

Global Hawk was used on the planes. Those were not UAV's that flew into the towers. They actually were Flight's 11 and 175. The technology is there for a ground operator to over ride the human pilots on board. All of those people were just unkowingly along for the ride.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

18. ohhhhhh

oh my

not good

[rinsd]

25. Global Hawk technology IS the drone.....

Are you saying an aging plane was retrofitted completely without the airline knowing? It's not like you can install something like that on a plane like in the movies where its a little box or something.

Or do you believe they made fake planes and switched them on the airlines? Or are the airlines collaborating?

[Harald Ragnarsson]

24. We have drones flying all over the world right now

A drone launched the bomb that killed those 20 people in Pakistan not long back.

Anything we see now has been operational for at loeast a decade before hand, that's the military way.

5 years ago, I read an article about a jumbo jet flown by this technology from the USA to Austrailia, not a human soul on board. Take off and landing done by remote control as well.

Then there are unconfirmed reports that these systems had been put onboard passenger jets well before 911 happened, to prevent highjackings.

[frylock]

12. you used a cell phone, as others around you did as well?

Were you not confronted by the flight crew? They simply allowed this? Where were you when you made the call? I recently conducted an experiment myself. I left my phone on (Samsung RL-A760 through Sprint) during a cross-country from DC to San Diego. I frequently checked my signal strength throughout the flight and the only time I received the faintest of signals was when we flew over Vegas. The only time I received a signal that was usable was upon approach to San Diego when we were well below 10000'.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

14. I was between Tallahassee and Tampa

over the water. We were in the middle of the flight. Nobody said a word to me about it. It was U.S. Air.

[Bruce McAuley]

3. My Father in law lives 8 miles away from the crash site...

He reports papers and such light debris falling on his neighbor's property at the top of the hill he lives by.
This would be inconceivable if it had just augered into the ground.
Nobody wants to know such glaring inconsistent facts.

Bruce

[yurbud]

4. I can think of one legit reason to keep the shoot down quiet--

Do you want to be known as the pilot who killed innocent Americans on purpose?

Of course it's doubtful the Bushies had that kind of concern for subordinates. More likely they just liked the fake story better, or possibly had it in the hopper before the get go.

[Marr]

22. If you have absolutely no regard for truth, as the Bush Admin. hasn't-

then you're just going to make up the best story you can and go with it. Shooting that plane down was the right decision, but it's not exactly inspirational. So they lied, as usual. They even lie about the weather- remember Bush's bike accident?

[Radio_Guy]

7. Too much evidence

There is way too much evidence that Flight 93 was shot down to be ignored. The truth will come out, hopefully in less time than the truth about the JFK assassination. I want to see Bushco thrown in prison for their crimes.

[robertpaulsen]

10. K & R!

Glad to see this here.

:kick:

[DemoTex]

11. I, too, think UAL 93 was shot down. That was not always the case.

As a trained aircraft accident investigator, I initially balked at the shoot-down theory. With the evidence available now, a shoot-down is no longer stuff for the tinfoil hats. I also believe that there is evidence being suppressed that would prove a shoot down.

Shortly after 9/11, when it became apparent that an in-flight breakup might have occurred, I posited another theory. If there was a cockpit struggle with the hijackers (at that point it was a hijacking), as the regime-perpetuated myth goes, and the hijackers were overcome, the aircraft might have entered a steep, hi-power nose dive. My theory was that at some point past Mach 1.00 the jet might have broken up in the air. To support that theory, consider the case of Air Egypt Flight 990.

Air Egypt Flight 990 crash into the Atlantic Ocean on October 31, 1999, in an apparent suicide of a pilot. That Boeing 767-300ER experienced a high-speed, flight idle (no power) dive during which the Mmo was exceeded. The pilot then shut the engines down completely and a fight for the controls apparently took place, during which time several high differential "G" excursions were experienced. There was a final high speed, power-off nose dive into the Atlantic, during which an in-flight breakup (for whatever reason) probably occurred.

Airplane wreckage was located in two debris fields, about 1,200 feet apart, centered at 40° 21' north latitude and 69° 46' west longitude, on the ocean floor at a depth of 230 feet. The western debris field, which was estimated to be 62 meters by 66 meters and was centered about 40° 20' 57" north latitude, 69° 45' 40" west longitude, contained mainly parts associated with the left engine and various other small pieces of wreckage (including portions of two wing panels, fuselage skin, horizontal stabilizer skin, and the majority of the nose landing gear assembly). The western debris field, which was estimated to be 62 meters by 66 meters contained mainly parts associated with the left engine and various other small pieces of wreckage (including portions of two wing panels, fuselage skin, horizontal stabilizer skin, and the majority of the nose landing gear assembly). The eastern debris field, which was estimated to be 83 meters by 73 meters contained the bulk of the airplane's fuselage, wings, empennage (including the outboard tips of the right and left elevators and all recovered elevator PCAs), right engine, main landing gear, and flight recorders. FAA ATC radar data indicate that the airplane impacted the ocean with an average descent rate during the second dive of about 20,000 fpm.
It is apparent that the left engine and some small pieces of wreckage separated from the airplane at some point before water impact because they were located in the western debris field about 1,200 feet from the eastern debris field. Although no radar or FDR data indicated exactly when (at what altitude) the separation occurred, on the basis of aerodynamic evidence and the proximity of the two debris fields, it is apparent that the airplane remained intact until sometime during its final descent.
http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2002/aab0201.htm

While Egypt Air Flight 990 is a compelling case for supporting an in-flight structural break up of UAL 93, there is one glaring discrepancy. If UAL 93 did indeed break up in-flight as a result of structural exceedances, we would know it. The Bu$h regime would have shouted it from the roof tops. Instead, we get an investigation cloaked in secrecy and perhaps even tampered with by the introduction of a disingenuous urban myth ("Let's roll!). Compare what we know from a rather difficult underwater accident site (EA 990) to what we know from the smoking holes in the Pennsylvania countryside on a bright sunny day (UAL 93). The investigation of UAL 93 is a lie of omission, and they are lying because they shot that airplane down.

[Johonny]

13. I don't get it

I don't see anything to gain from covering up shooting the plane down. Given that Cheney failed to tell the Air Force the exact nature of the emergency and that the USAF sent jets over the Atlantic thinking it was a missile attack from a sub. This tends to make Cheney look like a total moran (which he is, mango anyone). I'd like to think he would really like to say we shot it down rather than I'm an idiot that screwed up scrambling the Air Force.

[DemoTex]

16. It boggles the mind, indeed (see my post 11).

But, as an aircraft accident investigator, the lack of public disclosure on UAL 93 indicates a cover-up. Given the apparent motives of the hijackers, I think a shoot down was justified. That makes a cover-up even more sinister. What the fuck was going on with our government on 9/11?

[Johonny]

23. seems like the cover up everything

Only mushrooms grow in the dark. This administrations in ability to deal honestly with congress, American citizens, other countries has put them on pretty shaky ground. However pointlessly cover ups in this case seem like business as usual for this white house. Thus I don't get all that worked up. You know its when they aren’t covering up I get worried.

[Marie26]

19. If Rall is all about setting the record straight

why did he lie in his cartoon? The "Flight 93" cartoon said that "The 9/11 Commission found no evidence of a passenger revolt!" But now he's saying the 9/11 Commission did find there was a revolt, but they're lying. Which is it?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

20. Because he's an asshole. n/t

[Marie26]

21. That's sort of what I thought

:) Thanks for the explanation!

[redqueen]

26. Could he not have been simply mistaken?

Humans do those things, you know... make mistakes.

[Marie26]

27. Nah

He wrote the cartoon at about the same time as he wrote this editorial, and has apparantly read up on the Flight 93 events. I think it's a case of twisting facts to highlight your case.

[redqueen]

28. Or maybe he meant that they didn't really find any evidence,

despite their claims.

Asshole or no, he's got more balls than most other reporters.