Do Not Forget The Heroes

[gumboot]

I recently came across a very useful PDF document

Here

It's a big one - over 120 pages. Not sure on its specific origins, but it's some sort of staff report from Aug 2004 regarding the four flights on 9/11. It has a detailed timeline for each flight, amongst other things.

Very useful document.

But relating to the title of this thread... I found this piece, regarding UA175:

9:00 A.M.
Passenger Brian David Sweeney called his mother and told her that his flight
had been hijacked. He said that the passengers were thinking about storming the cockpit to wrest control of the plane away from the hijackers. He thought they were flying somewhere over Ohio. Immediately after the call from her son, Mrs. Sweeney turned on the television and saw the second aircraft crash into the South Tower of the World Trade Center.

It is often cited how no one knew how to respond to 9/11, and how the passengers on UA93 were the first people to realise what had to be done, and do it. There is criticism from denialists that passengers would not meekly let their airliners be taken over.

The above information deserves to be recognised for what it is. The passengers on UA175 also recognised their danger immediately. An hour before the passengers on UA93 made their move, these passengers went through the exact same thought processes.

UA175 had the shortest flight duration of all of the flights on 9/11. From hijacking to crash, the flight lasted a mere 16 minutes. The next shortest flight; AA11, lasted over half an hour.

No one on UA175 had time to find out what happened with AA11. Yet in the space of 16 minutes they decided to act. They never got the chance.

But I think regardless, their decision, and the speed with which they made it, deserves recognition.

-Gumboot

 

[T.A.M.]

I agree they need to be recognized, although how serious their thoughts of storming the cockpit were, is up for speculation. It may have been a legit discussion on doing so, or just angry thoughts and words from the distraught passengers...hard to say.

I find it hard to falthom, that if they were threatened with a bomb, as claims are made for some of the flights, that a group would be considering storming them, given the risk of the bomb being detonated, and all lost....

Good link though.

TAM

 

[gumboot]

I agree they need to be recognized, although how serious their thoughts of storming the cockpit were, is up for speculation. It may have been a legit discussion on doing so, or just angry thoughts and words from the distraught passengers...hard to say.

I find it hard to falthom, that if they were threatened with a bomb, as claims are made for some of the flights, that a group would be considering storming them, given the risk of the bomb being detonated, and all lost....

Good link though.

TAM

According to the phone calls they knew both pilots were dead, the hijackers were controlling the aircraft, it was flying erratically, and descending incredibly fast. They thought they were going down. I believe in one of the phone calls someone even made the very direct comment "we're not going to be landing". I think some unknowable human gut instinct just kicked in.

You're right, of course... we don't know how far this idea progressed. But how long before it was first suggested did it take for the passengers on UA93 to actually act?

-Gumboot

 

[MG1962]

I think it is Sun Tzu who said, if you want to discover the depths of a mans' courage, cut of his means of retreat

 

[Mr. Skinny]

I think it is Sun Tzu who said, if you want to discover the depths of a mans' courage, cut of his means of retreat

I'm not sure how that is a measure of courage. Seems like simple "fight or flight" reaction.

 

[T.A.M.]

According to the phone calls they knew both pilots were dead, the hijackers were controlling the aircraft, it was flying erratically, and descending incredibly fast. They thought they were going down. I believe in one of the phone calls someone even made the very direct comment "we're not going to be landing". I think some unknowable human gut instinct just kicked in.

You're right, of course... we don't know how far this idea progressed. But how long before it was first suggested did it take for the passengers on UA93 to actually act?

-Gumboot

With the new (or at least forgotten to me) details you have presented, it certainly seems more of a possibility that they were contemplating a real take over attempt of the overtaken cockpit.

TAM

 

[Totovader]

With the new (or at least forgotten to me) details you have presented, it certainly seems more of a possibility that they were contemplating a real take over attempt of the overtaken cockpit.

TAM

And that seems to be very consistent with the altitude graphs that show several significant inclines and then rapid descents.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I'm not sure how that is a measure of courage. Seems like simple "fight or flight" reaction.

Having read some Sun Tzu, I believe his meaning was if someone can not retreat they will either fight, or give up; if they fight you will see the measure of their courage.

 

[gumboot]

Having read some Sun Tzu, I believe his meaning was if someone can not retreat they will either fight, or give up; if they fight you will see the measure of their courage.

Given they're war philosophies, it may have also been intended as a warning as well...

If you've driven back a superior enemy, don't cut off their escape route, because if you do they'll have to fight, and they might just defeat you.

Sometimes it's better to let the enemy retreat.

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

And that seems to be very consistent with the altitude graphs that show several significant inclines and then rapid descents.

That may even explain UA175's final approach to the towers - nearly missing WTC2. The buildings would have been really easy targets, but if the pilots were distracted...

-Gumboot

 

[MG1962]

Given they're war philosophies, it may have also been intended as a warning as well...

If you've driven back a superior enemy, don't cut off their escape route, because if you do they'll have to fight, and they might just defeat you.

Sometimes it's better to let the enemy retreat.

Thats my take on it. Cut of an enemys retreat - effectively take choices away. Chances are they will fight with greater determination. In the case with the passengers on those planes - 93 in particular. They figured riding the situation out was not going to work, in all probabilty they would die no matter the course of action. Fighting it out at least gave them hope of a positive out come. Sadly history shows they failed......... but still makes them no less heros

 

[CptColumbo]

There is evidence (ATC recordings) that the hijackers had told the passengers that they were returning to the airport, and the prevailing theory in the airline industry at the time was to not put passengers and crew in danger by fighting the terrorists. Also, the story that AA11 was hijacked before it hit the WTC had not had time to be widespread (17 min.). While they may have contemplated taking the plane back, it probably would not have had the support of the majority of passengers and remaining crew.

Of course it is all speculation, and we will never know what went through their minds before they met thier end.

It would be interesting to know if anyone, on any of the flights, would have been able to land the plane if they had taken back the cockpit. Without knowledge of the other hijackings and the ultimate goals of the hijackers this would be something I would take into consideration (including if a novice could be talked down by someone on the ground).

 

[The Doc]

News reports regarding what hit the World Trade Centers didn't really know that it was a plane that hit WTC1 until Flight 175 hit the WTC2.

I can imagine, however, that people on a hijacked plane who heard something exploded at WTC1 would have a pretty good idea that the two events were related.

I guess we'll never really know

 

[T.A.M.]

I notice that alot of the CTers will say that the skills of the pilots wouldnt allow them to easily hit one of the WTCs because they were narrow buildings.

Now I know this is likely not true, but if we give them that much, tell me, if you are approaching the two towers from a distance, are they not close enough to each other, to offer a much larger target as a single unit of two buildings. If so, if attacking the two towers, not concerned which one you hit, would it be easier to (A) at least hit one of them or (B) pass through/betwen the two, unscathed?

TAM

 

[gumboot]

It would be interesting to know if anyone, on any of the flights, would have been able to land the plane if they had taken back the cockpit. Without knowledge of the other hijackings and the ultimate goals of the hijackers this would be something I would take into consideration (including if a novice could be talked down by someone on the ground).

One of the passengers on UA93 was a pilot...

-Gumboot

 

[Hokulele]

Just out of curiosity, have any of you ever been in a real flight simulator? I have no experience with piloting at all, but I got a chance to pretend to fly a 727 once at Purdue University's aviation tech department when I was there attending a conference (yes, a 727, I am dating myself). This was before 2001, but I remember how surprisingly easy it was to take off and fly, if you didn't worry about the legality of your flight path, or the comfort of your passengers. They did let me try to land it, and, let's just say we would have lived through it, but motion sickness would have been a problem. I know we have at least one pilot on this forum, but I was curious about people without any other piloting experience, but who had been in a simulator.

 

[Bobert]

This is a great topic

 

[apathoid]

Just out of curiosity, have any of you ever been in a real flight simulator? I have no experience with piloting at all, but I got a chance to pretend to fly a 727 once at Purdue University's aviation tech department when I was there attending a conference (yes, a 727, I am dating myself). This was before 2001, but I remember how surprisingly easy it was to take off and fly, if you didn't worry about the legality of your flight path, or the comfort of your passengers. They did let me try to land it, and, let's just say we would have lived through it, but motion sickness would have been a problem. I know we have at least one pilot on this forum, but I was curious about people without any other piloting experience, but who had been in a simulator.

Yep, I've flown the MD-90 and 767-400 sims, spending the better part of 3 hours in the latter(it was 4 AM). I remember everything being extremely easy. My second landing approach(the first was an autoland) was a little shaky even I used the autothrottle to maintain speed, it might've been a decent landing had not the instructor decided to give me 30 kts of wind across the runway. The third landing was nearly perfect. My previous piloting experience was about 30 minutes in a Cessna 150 and about 10 minutes in a King Air(C-12 actually) many years prior....

 

[Vincent Vega]

I'm not sure how that is a measure of courage. Seems like simple "fight or flight" reaction.

Not at all. Fight or flight is pure instinct and requires no forethought. They could have just sat their cowering and hoped they made it through it.

 

[Vincent Vega]

With the new (or at least forgotten to me) details you have presented, it certainly seems more of a possibility that they were contemplating a real take over attempt of the overtaken cockpit.

TAM

I find it hard to belive the hijackers would have ditched the plane in a field in PA if the cockpit was not under serious contention. I belive the two outside the cockpit had been neutralized and a serious attempt to break into the cockpit was underway.