The Legend of United Flight 93

United 93 hit the theaters amid widespread concern that nobody was prepared to see it; the potential for a flop was huge. This seems rather surprising in light of the fact that an A&E TV-movie on the subject received huge ratings, enough that A&E even repeated the movie several times rather than running yet another episode of Law & Order. Perhaps the concern over whether people wanted to pay money to expose themselves to a particularly emotional recreation of recent history was meant to deflect attention away form the fact that it was calling itself a true story when, in fact, the events that took place on board that plane still remain shrouded in mystery and contradiction and-dare we use the word-conspiracy?

This article is not-repeat, NOT-designed to endorse any of the challenges to the official story. I will state flatly that I simply have not done the research necessary to come to a final conclusion on whether the attacks made against the legend of Flight 93 are verifiable. Rather, my intention is merely to draw the attention of the potential United 93 audience to some of the questions that have been raised about the conventional wisdom surrounding the events that took place aboard the plane.

The following information was derived from various web sites. You can find links to these sites in the resources section.

THE CELL PHONE CALLS
How many times have you ever had your call dropped while driving on the interstate on or in rural area? My service provider is ALLTEL and I get dropped calls at least a few times a week. The legend of United 93 basically stems from the series of phone calls made by passengers to loved ones. Most of what we think we know about what took place aboard that plane is based on those conversations.

One of the most prominent concerns about the legend of United 93 is that technological facts don’t add up. On almost every web site and in almost every book that questions the official story you will find information that serves to debunk the possibility that so many cell phone conversations could have taken place for so long at the same time. The claim is that cell phone calls get considerably more difficult to make the higher the plane flies; once it gets above 10,000 feet it becomes almost impossible. Another problem is that the connections get more difficult the faster the plane travels.

Further complicating the search for the truth is that the 9/11 Commission Report makes no distinction between how many calls were made from onboard phones, which do provide a more reliable connection, and how many were made from person cell phones. Another concern commonly raised among these web sites is the sheer number of calls allegedly made. Why were the hijackers so incredibly lenient in allowing these calls to take place? The most obvious answer is typically overlooked: what could the callers possibly hope to accomplish? There seems little doubt that once fully in control of the planes, the hijackers were supremely confident they couldn’t possibly be stopped.

THE CRASH SITE
Whew! You think the JFK assassination created the mother of all conspiracy theories? Wait till you take a look at some of the information surrounding the actual crash site of United 93. The central concerns of these questions revolve around the fact that debris was scattered over such a widespread geographical area that it is inconsistent with the official findings. In addition, even though the plane was only traveling around 500 mph, it appeared to be completely obliterated on impact. Several of the web sites offer photos of the crash site and ask the obvious question: where are all the huge plane parts normally found at a crash scene?

If you look at this photos, you will wonder. Where are the wings? The fuselage? Engine parts. All of these huge sections of a plane you expect to find are missing. Yet several smaller items made of such things as plastic and paper were collected from the scene. It does seem rather odd. I’m just saying.

The legend of United 93 that all these questions lead to, naturally, is that the plane did not go down into a field as a result of a passenger uprising, but rather because it was successfully shot down at the order of the US government. Lending a great deal of credence to this idea is that Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld later told US troops that the plane had been shot down over Pennsylvania.

If the plane had indeed been shot down, then why allow the story the of the passenger revolt to take credit? Well, that’s easy. If the Bush administration is good at anything-and it appears they are only good at one thing-it is propaganda. Let’s face it, Americans killing Americans, even in the name of the greater good, just doesn’t have the propagandistic legs that a great mythical story like a victim uprising against their foreign oppressors has. The passenger revolt aboard United 93 not only links back to the colonists rebelling against England for their independence, but it also fits perfectly into the Bush regime’s designs for a version of patriotism that ultimately comes down to the mentality of “you’re either with us or against us.” The legend of United 93 is exactly the kind of black and white reasoning that the Bush administration favors. The US military shooting down the plane allows for far too much ambiguity; a passenger revolt is right out of a John Wayne or Bruce Willis movie.

LET’S ROLL
Allegedly the last words that passenger Todd Beamer was heard to say over his cell phone and supposedly the kickoff to the final phase of the passenger plan of action to overtake the hijackers. “Let’s roll” also sounds like something you would hear in a John Wayne or Bruce Willis movie; one of those instant tag lines that action movies are famous for. Think “Hasta la vista, baby,” or “Make my day.” It’s short, pointed, and timeless. The only problem is that it probably wasn’t said at all, and that the similar sounding phrase may not have been said by Beamer.

The 9/11 Commission concluded that what was actually said was “roll it” probably in reference to a flight attendant cart to be used in attempt to break their way into the cockpit. Of course, “roll it” doesn’t have the pithy action hero tagline ring to it. Although the phrase let’s roll has been a rallying cry to action for decades, its popularity skyrocketed following 9/11. In fact, a battle for the right to trademark the term quickly escalated. Think about the potential for making money off a phrase like “Let’s Roll” or, say, “Support the Troops.” Where haven’t you seen or heard those words: T-shirts, bumper stickers, songs, speeches by Pres. Bush. The possibility of making big bucks from that phrase dwarfs the potential royalties that Pat Riley can ever expect to make from his trademark of that term for when a team wins three straight championships. You know the one; it rhymes with repeat and freepeat and shepeat.

These three topics are at the heart of the concerns that what we have been told about the lenged of United 93 may not be the true story. If you visit any of the web sites I have listed you will find links to ever more developed and troubling theories. Some of the more outlandish-though not necessarily unbelievable-possibilities touched upon are that the real United 93 landed safely and the one that crashed was a decoy; that the phone calls were made because they were made from the ground; and, of course, that the whole thing was engineered by the Bush administration in order to launch the groundswell of support they knew they would need to proceed with their plan for invading Iraq with which they entered the White House back in January 2001.