Interesting...

Sounds like Murphy's Law trying its damndest.

i'm sure there were dozens of other close calls that day that we'll eventually learn about.

A collective "whew"

Air Traffic Controller to pilot: Bill? Is that you? It's me, Jack!
Pilot: Hi Jack!

um yes

So.. why are we finding this out today?

oh well.. interesting..

Wow. That could have been really bad.

Everyone on that plane is lucky to be alive.

Hipnerd
erik estrada kissed me

08-13-02 01:37:59 PM Thenetbox
So.. why are we finding this out today?

I was wondering the same thing. Here in Anchorage we knew about the plane being diverted not long after it happened.

I can definitely see there being an enormous potential for confusion in that situation (such as "Did they just order us to set our transponder to 7500???").
One point that shouldn't have been confusing (although I certainly couldn't blame anyone for hesitation and confusion given the pressure of the situation) is the conflicting commands to let the plane land in Anchorage or to make it veer off. The former was from the FAA. The later was from NORAD, which had at that moment a pair of F15s following the plane. As in most situations, obey the people with the big guns pointing at you (or, in this case, at the plane you're trying to guide).

And all the Koreans said

kekekekekekekekeke ^_^

Old news. I remember reading about this on sept 12th and my father who was in the Anchorage airport telling me this too. If i recall correctly, there was a second cargo liner that also radioed in the same.

Well, not too surprising. The Air Force would have shot it down damn fast if it was heading for anything remotely important... I doubt they would take ANY chances with something like that

The Koreans are comming! The Koreans are comming!

ahem, similar to Flight 93 perhaps?

One can just imagine the horror if it had gone differently.


FIFTH PLANE SMASHES INTO IGLOO
Inhabitants uninjured; were rendering blubber by the lake at the time

very, very weird. now imagine this: the korean plane gets shot down - think we'd ever find out that there had been no hijacking?

Oberon
Somewhere ----> out there
is a wav file of the communications with Flight 93.

I don't think it was a faked hijacking.

Not faked Stebain, shot down.

Kekeke~

Rimjob? ^^;;

i actually heard a really creepy conspiracy theory about that flight...

Flight 007? I sure will fly North Korea Air whenever I get chance.

"The events illustrate how tensions and suspicions on Sept. 11 spawned misunderstandings that threatened to spin out of control."

Well no shiat. I'm glad we have this article to tell us stuff like this.

How does it take almost a year for the media to tell us Anchorage was evacuated?

Tight lipped people you have up there, evidently.

Murder In The Skies
by Gary Moore


Time was running out for all on board
Soaring up through the shadows of night.
High above the clouds the engines roared
This would be their final flight.

The russians have shot down a plane on its way to Korea.
Two hundred and sixtynine innocent victims have died.

Murder in the skies
Came without a warning.
Murder in the skies
Black September morning.
Murder in the skies.

Time was running out for everyone
Flying over the Sea of Japan.
None would live to see the rising sun
Death was following close at hand.

The russians have shot down a plane on its way to Korea.
Two hundred and sixtynine innocent victims have died.

Murder in the skies
Came without a warning.
Murder in the skies
Black September morning.
Murder in the skies
Came without a warning.
Murder in the skies
Black September morning.

Murder in the skies
Came without a warning.
Murder in the skies
Black September morning.
Murder in the skies
Came without a warning.
Murder in the skies
Black September morning.

Murder in the skies.
Murder in the skies.
Murder in the skies.
Murder, Murder in the skies.
Murder in the skies.

Those kooky Koreans! This is what happens when you spend all your freetime playing Starcraft.

SLAYERSWINE
The Gary Moore?

I cannot remember the band he was in, but I also recall
he had a couple hits back in the 80's by himself.

Now what did Ackbar say about flying Korean Air...

They meant to send the de-activation code for the shield protecting the Death Star (many cliches died getting that code)!!!

Oberon
wasn't shot down either.

I'm not going to rehash the argument since it hasn't been probably
two weeks since we [farkers, not me & you] had it out.

Interesting is the most approriate tag. I thought the government couldn't get jets anywhere near the hijacked planes in time... because, you know, all the nearest air force bases just happend to be closed down on 9-11.

I guess each person has his/her own views obviously. Personally, I think it was shot down.

....and all the dogs in Korea become depressed.

Stebain is right. We did all this a couple weeks ago. But here's a summary. If Flight 93 was shot down....



How come there is only smoke coming from the ground up?

Stebain

Gary Moore played with Thin Lizzy for a while. Is that who you're thinking of?

08-13-02 01:55:55 PM RaoulDuke
i actually heard a really creepy conspiracy theory about that flight...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --
Come on RaoulDuke. Spill what u heard. Or was it that it got shot down?

My Senior Prank was sending out the highjack code from the Aiprlane we flew in on our class trip to Europe.

Man, the techers were PISSED with us....

Yes, it's the real photo but what the HELL is that in the upper righthand corner? And just who the hell is Val McClatchey? I bet she had something to do with the conspiracy, right?

I live in Whitehorse and was at the airport when these two birds landed - the first was a KAL cargo plane which wasn't of concern, but the second, a passenger 747 landed under escort of a pair of F-18's from Anchorage and a pair of CF-18's from some Canadian base, probably Cold Lake, Alberta. Funny how that never gets mentioned.

Anyways, I made a posting to /. about what I saw that day. It was so wierd, because when we were talking about seeing the mayhem that was going on in the States that fateful morning, many of us commented "man, am I glad we live up here!"... then we heard that the 747's were coming in hot.

Here's the link to the posting:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?cid=2281846&sid=21548

Another cool article from the USA Today site gives us *detailed accounts on what went on during the day of Sept. 11 with various air traffic controllers, pilots, etc. I tried to post that one, but apparently fark liked this one cause it was shorter. And yes, FifthColumn, I gave the other one the *Interesting tag.

Dr. Toast, I'm not that much of a newbie, I saw that thread too. And generally I'm not a conspiracy theorist.

BUT, if people found debris 8 miles away, doesn't it seem plausible that the missle hit THERE (8 miles away) but that the plane went down where this picture was taken? That picture surely does not encompass 8 miles, much less 2-3. So yes, that theory does seem plausible to me.

eh.

Does that say copyrignted?

Lukateake

And just what the hell is all that text doing in the middle of the sky? That's pretty weird. What are those letters made of? Why isn't anyone talking about that?

9/11 was a hell of a day. From my research, I have determined the following all occured:

1) The U.S. Government, knowing that airplanes were going to be crashed into the WTC, did nothing to prevent the attack.
2) Feeling that the loss of the WTC would be insufficient to further their secret agenda, the U.S. Government faked a plane crash into the Pentagon.
3) Feeling that losing the WTC and the Pentagon was insufficient to further their secret agenda, the U.S. Government shot down an airplane over Pennsylvania and then covered it up.
4) The U.S. Government told all the Jews in New York about their plans ahead of time, so no Jews showed up at the WTC that day.
5) One poor guy on the observation deck of the WTC didn't get the word in time, but the FBI recovered his camera and released an amazing photograph of the first airplane about the hit the second tower. For some reason, the fellow also failed to get word of the extremely fine weather the city enjoyed that day, and was wearing a winter coat.


The more I read, the more I learn.

nice work Guylorensmith, I've always suspected the jews were tipped off.

ManGravy Yeah, I have some Jewish friends and they showed me the memo.

Stupid.............Koreans.

**goes in search of Korean racial epithets**

Stupid 13th man is a ghost player!

**nevermind**

T T ... YOU GIVE MISSILE

I telecommute, but my buddies were in their offices in Anchorage (8th floor) when this happened.

If they would have went into Anchorage, the only targets would be Oil company highrises (25'ish floors)buildings.

Baldactor

how about "dog-eating rice-face" or "rice-eating dog-face"?

They should've shot that farking plane down.

Hmmm, it IS entirely possible that the farking terrorist just MIGHT have had some sort of explosive device on the plane right? PERHAPS?? MAYBE AT LEAST?

And to be perfectly honest....who gives a shiat it was shot down? I (being a person with a spine/balls/guts/whatever you refer to it as) would rather be shot down (would actually prefer being shot on the plane while trying to overtake the terrorists) by U.S. fighters than flown into a building where my head flying off might cause one more unnecessary death.

For those of you in the UK, read today's Independent. It covers the Flight 93 crash quite nicely, including the part where the last phone call from the plane was made 8 minutes before the crash, by a guy reporting an explosion on board and smoke filling the aircraft.

Then there's the little matter of paper wreckage being found 10 miles away from the crash site. Ever seen whole bunch of papers stay up in the air for an hour (FBI explanation: They 'wafted' there on a 10mph wind) and then come down in one general area? I'm sure even the papers from the top of the WTC were on the ground in less than half that time.

Not to mention the unmarked aircraft that the FBI first denied completely, then claimed was a civilian jet that had been asked to fly over the wreckage to help rescuers. An hour after all civilian air traffic had been grounded.

Or that military jets 10 mins flight time away were in the air 40 mins before the crash, were reported on CNN to be tailing the aircraft, and then suddenly were "unable to reach the aircraft in time".

But hey, you go right ahead and accept the Government line. There's a good sheep, baa!

(And no, I'm not denying that the passengers took action, nor that they behaved in a heroic manner, because they undoubtedly did. That doesn't change the fact that there are some HUGE gaps in the official story.)

I'd be quite happy to accept that it was a shootdown, if any
evidence were proferred.
Does the Independent have an online version?
Does it include transcripts of the calls? Audio?

If it were shot down: Given the circumstances, I'd have no big problem.

PS - Dazoli, you're right - a bomb on board would fit perfectly. But why would the govt. go to so much trouble to deny such an obvious and plausible explanation?

Bluefrogprince's article
[I'm guessing]

Stebain : Yep - article is here. No transcripts though, have they been released anywhere yet? I was under the impression that the authorities had siezed all the tapes and told whoever did the taping/radar watching etc to shut the hell up.

I wouldn't blame them for shooting it down under the circumstances though, if they did. I just wanna know if/why they're covering stuff up.

Bluefrogprince
Just finished reading it.

Interesting. Thanks for the link.

someone on Fark had provided a link to an audio file of the
controllers talking to flight93. Includes the early chatter
about location, later the controller trying to make contact
with the pilot, later the voice of someone saying 'this is
your captain, we have a bomb on board' and then some chatter between the controller and other planes.

I'll take a cursory look back through the archives if you'd like.

Bluefrogprince Thank you very much for that article. I am so accustomed to the fringe theorists failing to provide anything even remotely convincing as evidence for their positions that I have a certain prejudice toward fringe views. The article you posted is a refreshing change from the usual set of bald assertions and logical lapses. It opens reasonable doubt.

I find it hard to believe, though, that a government which admitted to shooting down a passenger plane (the Vincennes incident) under fairly unjustifiable circumstances would lie about such an occurance under the extremely justifiable circumstances of 9/11.

But I also find it unlikely that the terrorists on flight 93 had a bomb with them. It doesn't jibe with the box-cutters.

Still, food for thought.

Of course, this is the Bush administration... so I guess that lends plausability to the idea that the airplane was shot down. That nitwit has little interest in dealing with the truth.

BFD

and, Guy, of course these are american citizens.

Remind me NEVER to fly on Korean Airlines.

I find it hard to believe, though, that a government which admitted to shooting down a passenger plane (the Vincennes incident) under fairly unjustifiable circumstances would lie about such an occurance under the extremely justifiable circumstances of 9/11.

Just a thought. People on Flight 93 had made clear that they planned on trying to fight back. And word had gotten out to civilians outside the plane (like when that guy called his wife on the cell phone and told her). I mean, the 9/11 attacks were so ideologically charged (anti capitalism, anti America). Don't you think that holding to the story that flight 93 passengers did rise up successfully against the terrorists (whether that is what really happened, or the plane got shot down) would make such great fuel to the post 9/11 sentiment that "Americans are strong; Americans will rise up against terrorists."

I can't imagine any administration admitting something like "We knew the Flgiht 93 passengers were attempting to oust the terrorists, but we didn't want to take any chances so we shot them down anyway."

Stebain I'm not sure what you mean.

AmanoSZ I don't buy that argument. It comes down to timing. Things were happening at a frantic pace that day. Any decision to cover up the cause of the downing of the plane had to be made quickly. Knowledge about the phone calls to civilians outside the airplane didn't surface for several days; at least, my recollection was that there was no mention in the news on 9/11 itself, and I don't recall knowing much about flight 93 for several days at least. So for anybody in the government to decide to present the story of the passengers fighting the terrorists would have required a herculean effort: first, knowing that the passengers made phone calls, then knowing what the contents of those phone calls were, then confirming that the passengers were planning to put up a fight, etc., all coordinated with the knowledge that a fighter plane was shooting flight 93 down; all of this information had to come into somebody's lap in a very short amount of time, and then that person had to conceive of a plan to boost the morale of the country on the spot, commit to that plan, and have the authority to implement that plan immediately -- all the while dealing with the incomprehensible events going on in New York and Washington DC. It seems really tenuous to me. I could see a knee-jerk reaction to concealing the fact of the downing of the plane, but in the days immediately following 9/11 the sentiment clearly was that shooting the plane down would have been fully justified; I don't see any need by the government to protect itself on this point.

So if flight 93 WAS shot down, what is the government's motive for concealing it? The public would certainly understand the need for such action, so it's not a matter of covering one's ass. And any alleged boost in morale is miniscule compared to the beating we took watching those buildings collapse. A coverup for purposes of morale boosting seems as unjustified as a coverup for ass protection.

What I *could* believe would be people covering up the incident simply out of some weird conception that it needs to be covered up; not for any good reason, but just out of paranoia.

Still, I'd like more evidence. Like, a pilot stepping forward and saying "I pulled the trigger," or some other kind of smoking gun.

Full disclosure of the contents of the black box would be a good place to start.

Guy
sorry for not checking back in.

I meant it would be harder to explain shooting down
a plane full of Americans than others.

IIRC, the mother of one of the more acclaimed passengers
was on tv on the 11th.

I've had enough conspiracy theories for the day. I work at a CVS and I had a customer tell me today that she thought CVS and the FBI were "in cohoots" and were sharing information through use of her CVS card. That's why she didn't like "those damn cards".

I'm sure the FBI has a file on what type of hairspray she likes to buy. Eugh

One of the passengers (Beamer?) called and talked to an operator, you can bet she patched that call in to the FBI or anyone who needed to hear it. I wonder what really was up on the Korean flight. It seems really hard to believe they had such a big misunderstanding. Maybe they got some hijackers that didn't get what they wanted, and they set them adrift on a block of ice. I think the PA flight was shot down too, which makes me wonder back to the one that went down off of Long Island. Was it to Paris? At first witnesses discussed a missile and an explosion next thing you know it was a "fuel" tank problem. I suppose a missile hitting the fuel tank could be a problem. I just wonder if soemone was practicing, and if so who and why.

The government has nothing to be ashamed of even if Flight 93 was shot down. No one would have held it against them. THere would be no civil liability issues. It would have been the right thing to do.... And I don't think they'd feel compelled to cover it up under the circumstances.

But I personally believe it was crashed by the passengers

Deathcow, downtown Anchorage isn't a likely target, but imagine what would have happened if they hit the pipeline terminal. That would have had as much impact on the US economy, if not more, that the attack on the WTC.

We both live up here, so you know how hard the pipeline, or the terminal would be to protect against a determined terrorist.

Got to give out a few rails:

Rtreynor Nice work - you are the f!rst and only one to make the obligitory igloo/eskimo/tundra/blubber reference as soon as some Alaska story comes up - you're a real witty dude!! ...and by witty, I mean stupid farkhead.

Guylorensmith Your enumerated comments above are pretty farking pathetic - very insensitive, considering the cool 9/11 related posts yesterday (the photographer). Making light of what happened is still not OK - you dumbfark!!!. Get a goddamned life!

Bah - somebody else pissed me off too, but I can't find the comment again. Suffice it to say - don't be a calloused asshole re: 9/11. It only shows your ignorance.

d'oh, I suppose it's too late to get in the game on this one, but I'll comment anyway.

Why is this story just coming out now? 's about farking time. I heard about this ON 9/11 from my friend whose dad works for the gov't, though at the time said friend (and his dad, I'm sure) believed it was part of the coordinated attack and that they were heading for the pipeline. I've been farking WAITING for someone to address that.

Now, what about the other things I've heard, such as that the attackers had 8 planes total and military forces (some international--one was supposed to come in from London) managed to divert and/or catch the other four before takeoff but they're covering it up? I mean, if they've kept this lil' "oops! typo!" business down for nearly a year, who'd be surprised to hear that a much, MUCH larger attack was planned and caught but not disclosed?

Conspiracy theories are fun.

Check out this one. Debris was found too far away for the plane to have entered intact. THerefore, US must have shot down flight 93. But witnesses say that the plane wasn't smoking when it hit the ground. So the air force must have use some sort of EM radiation to screw up the plane and make it crash. Umm...but didn't we just say that the reason you know it was shot down was from debris?

And if Flight 93 was shot down, how come the cockpit voice recorder tapes don't reflect that, sound of a loud bang, confused calls, efforts to keep the plane in the air, etc. If you go to the NTSB's website, they have the transcripts of the CVR tapes of a few crashes. For the times on a plane when something goes horribly wrong, those mics pick up quite a lot, yet the tapes apparently don't reflect it being shot down.

Oh well, I know people who think the whole thing was a Govt. plot, a plane didn't really crash at the Pentagon it was a bomd, and so on and so on... you're never going to be able to stop those people who can't accept the simple fact that what you see is sometimes exactly what happened.