Victims' families split on 'myth' of United 93 heroes following ceremony

[Flashback]

Victims' families split on 'myth' of United 93 heroes following ceremony | News.com.au

THE battle to win back control of United Airlines Flight 93 from the hijackers on September 11, 2001, was fought by only a few and not every passenger, some of the victims’ relatives said today.

When Michelle Obama told the story of Flight 93 in a remembrance ceremony at the crash site in Pennsylvania last weekend, her speech brought tears to many eyes - but as she spoke of the 40 passengers and crew rising “as one” to take on the 9/11 terrorists, some of the victims’ relatives were unimpressed.
“I think it’s a beautiful story that 40 people rose as one, but that’s not the real story,” said Alice Hoagland, whose son Mark Bingham, 31, was one of a handful of passengers who stormed the coughpit.
Flight 93 was the only one of the four planes hijacked that day not to hit its target, believed to have been the Capitol building, where Congress was in session. The passengers’ actions likely saved hundreds of lives.
​

 

[medhead]

This type of soul searching is absolutely stupid and pointless. Once those sods (I'm thinking of many much stronger words) picked their flight all those people were dead whether they fought or not. Personally, in hindsight, I think it would be better to fight. Really given events of that day no one can hijack an aircraft ever again as they will never achieve their mission. I would expect all passengers to fight.

 

[Hvr]

Actually I think this type of soul searching is necessary if only to determine what really happened and what should be done in future terrorist attacks.

There were undoubtedly heroes and cowards.

Could some people have done more? Probably, but what?

Were some of the actions of the heroes ultimately futile? Quite possibly but done with the best of intentions.

So a thorough analysis of all actions taken could provide guidance about how to better respond if it happens again.

What group would I be categorised as if put in the same situation? I.e. hero or coward, I don't know but like everybody else I hope the former.

 

[medhead]

Maybe I jumped in too quickly again. Yes of course thoughtful analysis is required and useful. But I don't se the point of finger pointing and recriminations.

I did get the wrong end of the stick as I thought that maybe the families of the non fighters were blaming that for the death of their loved ones

 

[samh004]

I don't think the ones that didn't help by rushing the coughpit should be deemed cowards. Not everyone could have done it.

It's good to find out what happened, but attacking other grieving families by saying "your" relative was a coward because they watched on while "my" relative was a hero... it's just getting a little off the point. It's petty.

 

[drron]

It doesn't really matter to the wider world if 1 or 40 stormed the coughpit-the result almost certainly saved many lives.
To the families it is personal and extremely important.It should hopefully not however provoke recriminations.
Having been to the site in 2003 it certainly was for me extremely emotional.Even though at that stage there was no permanent memorial.

 

[odysseus]

The article doesn't say anyone is being called 'cowards.'

It's devaluaing things (as often happens now though) to generalise that everyone's a hero. Some people made some gallant acts, so why not acknowledge that, instead of making out that everyone did the same. It's offensive to the memory of those who do try harder, when it's not something everyone can - or did - do.

 

[medhead]

The article doesn't say anyone is being called 'cowards.'

No it doesn't.
But it is definitely implied. Isn't there a quote about my relative was up there in the coughpit fighting and others were hiding behind seats in the back? It gives a pretty clear tone.

 

[oz_mark]

The article doesn't say anyone is being called 'cowards.'

It's devaluaing things (as often happens now though) to generalise that everyone's a hero. Some people made some gallant acts, so why not acknowledge that, instead of making out that everyone did the same. It's offensive to the memory of those who do try harder, when it's not something everyone can - or did - do.

The way I see it, is that people are saying 'x was in the hero group, y wasn't.'. The problem is, no-one knows the full story of what happened. It is not possible to definitively say who was rushing the coughpit, who was 'hiding in their seats', etc. Sure, some contributed more than others, but I don't know that you can easily divide the group up. All you have is some evidence that some of the passengers were in the coughpit.

 

[SFSC]

With all respect to any possible heroes on that flight we may discover or be informed at some time in the future that the aircraft was in fact shot down by the military.

 

[dajop]

With all respect to any possible heroes on that flight we may discover or be informed at some time in the future that the aircraft was in fact shot down by the military.

But probably not within the next 40 years.

 

[NYCguy]

With all respect to any possible heroes on that flight we may discover or be informed at some time in the future that the aircraft was in fact shot down by the military.

The significant others of the pax on UA93 were invited to listen to the CVR tapes a few years after the event. It seems extraordinary to suggest that the US government was able to convincingly fake the recordings to the degree that they could fool the people who knew the victims best.

It's right up-there with chemtrails, fake moon-landings and Mossad plotting the entire 9/11 attack with the assistance of the CIA.

 

[medhead]

The significant others of the pax on UA93 were invited to listen to the CVR tapes a few years after the event. It seems extraordinary to suggest that the US government was able to convincingly fake the recordings to the degree that they could fool the people who knew the victims best.

It's right up-there with chemtrails, fake moon-landings and Mossad plotting the entire 9/11 attack with the assistance of the CIA.

Would they need to fake anything? Assuming that they did "fight back" and the aircraft was shot down. Surely it is a simple matter of cutting off the end of the recording if there is a bit that shows it was shot down.

Personally, (warning this is in layman's terms) from the limited pictures I've seen of the crash site there appears to be one large-ish burn mark. In my mind that suggests it hit the relatively ground intact. I don't think that would be the case if it was shot down.

 

[SFSC]

The significant others of the pax on UA93 were invited to listen to the CVR tapes a few years after the event. It seems extraordinary to suggest that the US government was able to convincingly fake the recordings to the degree that they could fool the people who knew the victims best.

It's right up-there with chemtrails, fake moon-landings and Mossad plotting the entire 9/11 attack with the assistance of the CIA.

I was acknowledging the possibility of another outcome here. I personally believe that the flight crashed as a result of control actions within the coughpit but there still is some probability that we may discover or be informed at some time in the future that the aircraft was in fact shot down by the military.

If it's in 40 years time it will be probably too late for me to change my mind