The only 9/11 CT I believe...

[Wat Tyler]

...is that the USAF shot down United Flight 93.

Furthermore, I aver that:

1) the US Govt was right to (heck, had a duty to) shoot it down, and also;

2) the US Govt. was right to (again, had a duty to) subsequently cover up its actions.

My apologies if this has been covered ad infinitum before, but I couldn't find it a discussion of it with the Search function (which is probably down to newbie incompetence).

Should anyone care (still have the willingness, after umpteen previous discussions of this?) to disagree with me, I'll happily explain why I believe the three statements.

 

[uk_dave]

I would tend to agree with you on both of your reasons, except that the physical evidence seems to suggest that a complete plane hit the ground, rather than one which had been destroyed (even partially) in the air.

 

[Wat Tyler]

I would tend to agree with you on both of your reasons, except that the physical evidence seems to suggest that a complete plane hit the ground, rather than one which had been destroyed (even partially) in the air.

I thought that one of the engines had been found 7 or 8 miles from the rest of the airliner?

That would certainly support the idea that someone had fired a heat-seeking missile at it.

My other problem with 'the official version' - the 'let's roll!' myth - is that I cannot understand why a group of technologically-literate Americans, having regained control of the airliner, would then pile it into the ground - or fail to radio for assistance during an attempted re-hijacking by the terrorists.

 

[uk_dave]

I thought that one of the engines had been found 7 or 8 miles from the rest of the airliner?

That would certainly support the idea that someone had fired a heat-seeking missile at it.

My other problem with 'the official version' - the 'let's roll!' myth - is that I cannot understand why a group of technologically-literate Americans, having regained control of the airliner, would then pile it into the ground - or fail to radio for assistance during an attempted re-hijacking by the terrorists.

I think you're wrong about the engine.

I think you're wrong about the passengers having regained control of the plane.

Got any sources?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

I thought that one of the engines had been found 7 or 8 miles from the rest of the airliner?

That would certainly support the idea that someone had fired a heat-seeking missile at it.

My other problem with 'the official version' - the 'let's roll!' myth - is that I cannot understand why a group of technologically-literate Americans, having regained control of the airliner, would then pile it into the ground - or fail to radio for assistance during an attempted re-hijacking by the terrorists.

no, only very small/light debris was found that far away, one engine was in the hole with the rest of the plane, the other was about 300ft (or so) feet away

the confusion usually stems from the fact that the engine was found in a pond, which people assume was indian lake, however it was just a small pond near the crash site

ETA: read the end of the CVR transcript http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/flight93cvr.html its clear the hijackers are still in control of the cockpit, but crashed the plane to prevent the passengers from regaining control

 

[David Wong]

And the passengers never gained control of the plane. It appears the terrorists are the ones who crashed it.

 

[Wat Tyler]

Thanks for the info - I'll get it read.

I am now, however, left with a more worrying thought - why wasn't the USAF ordered to shoot down Flight 93?

 

[Alt+F4]

...is that the USAF shot down United Flight 93.

Furthermore, I aver that:

1) the US Govt was right to (heck, had a duty to) shoot it down, and also;

2) the US Govt. was right to (again, had a duty to) subsequently cover up its actions.

If Bush admitted on 9/11-12 that UA93 was shot down I think the majority of Americans would have (sadly) admitted that it was the right course of action considering what had happened eariler in the day.

Why cover it up?

 

[Wat Tyler]

If Bush admitted on 9/11-12 that UA93 was shot down I think the majority of Americans would have (sadly) admitted that it was the right course of action considering what had happened eariler in the day.

Why cover it up?

To avoid making people too scared to board airliners in case they got hijacked and subsequently shot-down by the USAF.

As I understand it, a large part of the US economy involves people flying cross-country (and even if it isn't that large, those airlines employ a lot of people).

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Thanks for the info - I'll get it read.

I am now, however, left with a more worrying thought - why wasn't the USAF ordered to shoot down Flight 93?

posse commitatus act, the military cannot act as a law enforcement entity within the united states, this of course can be overridden by an order from the president (and was on 9/11) the order came through about 12 minutes after 93 crashed

another obstacle was the lack of fighters in position to intercept 93 in PA, alert fighters were stationed on the coastlines, expecting a need to intercept aircraft entering US airspace from outside

however, had 93 not crashed in PA it likely would have been shot down (or at least shot at) before reaching washington

 

[uk_dave]

To avoid making people too scared to board airliners in case they got hijacked and subsequently shot-down by the USAF.

As I understand it, a large part of the US economy involves people flying cross-country (and even if it isn't that large, those airlines employ a lot of people).

Well actually I would have gone for the "It was better to have the public (and the families of the victims) believe in a heroic act on the part of the passengers, than to admit that a USAF pilot shot the plane down and possibly inflict upon that pilot the scrutiny of the media and the conspiracy fantasists"

But the reality is that it would have been shot down had it been possible to do so before it was crashed.

 

[Alt+F4]

To avoid making people too scared to board airliners in case they got hijacked and subsequently shot-down by the USAF.

Since 9/11 I've believed that if the airplane I'm on is hijacked by terrorists over the United States that there is a strong possibility that it will be shot down by the military, yet I continue to fly.

Am I alone in this belief?

 

[Mr.D]

To avoid making people too scared to board airliners in case they got hijacked and subsequently shot-down by the USAF.

So, your reasoning is that after 9/11, people wouldn't be

"too scared to board airliners in case they got hijacked" and plowed into office buildings,

but people would be

"too scared to board airliners in case they got hijacked and subsequently shot-down by the USAF"

Personally given a choice, if I was on a hijacked airplane, I'd rather be shot down than used as a weapon to commit mass murder, but maybe that's just me.

 

[Myriad]

Thanks for the info - I'll get it read.

I am now, however, left with a more worrying thought - why wasn't the USAF ordered to shoot down Flight 93?

My understanding is that an order to shoot would have been moot until the plane had been intercepted, and that this had not happened by the time it crashed. I'm sure others can fill you in with the precise timeline, and point you to reliable sources for that information.

And I'm not sure I agree with you that ordering it shot down would have been the best thing to do. Especially not a "shoot immediately on sight" order which would be the only kind of order that would make any sense to give before the aircraft had been intercepted. Given fifteen minutes warning and a reasonable notion of the likely targets, I could see ordering government buildings evacuated rather than shooting down an airliner known to have civilian passengers. Though I wouldn't condemn an order to shoot either, under the circumstances.

Among the many other reasons to hold the Flight 93 passengers as heroes is that their actions spared the nation the need to decide -- or live with the consequences of the decision either way -- whether to deliberately take their lives to protect others.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Quad4_72]

Since 9/11 I've believed that if the airplane I'm on is hijacked by terrorists over the United States that there is a strong possibility that it will be shot down by the military, yet I continue to fly.

Am I alone in this belief?

I believe there would be no hesitation to shoot it down. I fly all the time. No offense wat but I think that is a very poor explanation for why the government would be afraid to tell the public they shot down a plane.

 

[ellindsey]

From my understanding no debris was found on the ground along the path taken by the airplane before it crashed. Pieces of one of the engine were found past the impact point, in the direction of the airplane's travel, and lightweight scraps were found downwind of the impact point, but nothing was found prior to the impact point. This suggests that the airplane was intact up until impact, and the debris found away from the impact point was either carried by the wind, or bounced or tumbled along the ground after impact.

 

[Wat Tyler]

So, your reasoning is that after 9/11, people wouldn't be

"too scared to board airliners in case they got hijacked" and plowed into office buildings,

but people would be

"too scared to board airliners in case they got hijacked and subsequently shot-down by the USAF"

Personally given a choice, if I was on a hijacked airplane, I'd rather be shot down than used as a weapon to commit mass murder, but maybe that's just me.

Prior to 9/11 hijacked airplanes would get flown to e.g. Cuba.

No-one would ever have thought to shoot them down, or, indeed, to try to wrest control of the plane back from the hijackers.

After 9/11, if I'm ever on a plane that gets hijacked, you can bet your eye-teeth that I'm fighting the hijacker(s), for the reasons that you mentioned - I do not wish to get ploughed into a skyscraper/famous building at 500 knots.

Of course, I am also aware that the local Govt might want to shoot it down if it is hijacked, and so it will be vital to ensure that the hijacker(s) never gain control of the flight.

Like you, I too would rather get shot down than used as part of a terrorist stunt.

From a Govt. POV, covering-up the shooting down of a hijacked plane would not prevent a reduction in flights due to a fear of hijacking - because the hijacking had already occurred and a downturn in business because of fear of being hijacked is thus inescapable - but it would prevent this extra 'fear factor' from putting folks off flying.

 

[Wat Tyler]

My understanding is that an order to shoot would have been moot until the plane had been intercepted, and that this had not happened by the time it crashed. I'm sure others can fill you in with the precise timeline, and point you to reliable sources for that information.

Cheers.

And I'm not sure I agree with you that ordering it shot down would have been the best thing to do. Especially not a "shoot immediately on sight" order which would be the only kind of order that would make any sense to give before the aircraft had been intercepted. Given fifteen minutes warning and a reasonable notion of the likely targets, I could see ordering government buildings evacuated rather than shooting down an airliner known to have civilian passengers. Though I wouldn't condemn an order to shoot either, under the circumstances.

Here's why I think the shootdown order IS the best thing to do:

On 9/11 three other hijacked airliners had been crashed into buildings - so I would argue that it was safe to count those on board as 'already dead'.

Only one of the three other planes was used to attack a Govt. building.
The other two hit a high-profile civilian target.

Washington DC is FULL of 'high-value targets' from a terrorist POV - most of which ARE Govt buildings, but can you imagine the propaganda value to al-Quaeda of having hit the White House or Capitol buildings?

What if you'd evacuated those buildings and they had actually decided instead to target say, the World Bank HQ?

You can't evacuate an entire city.

Even if letting them continue to their (unknown) target were to cause no casualties on the ground (which is, IMO, very unlikely), it would have gifted al-Quaeda a massive PR coup, and severely weakened the USA in the minds of other would-be terrorists.

Among the many other reasons to hold the Flight 93 passengers as heroes is that their actions spared the nation the need to decide -- or live with the consequences of the decision either way -- whether to deliberately take their lives to protect others.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Erm, others have said that the order to shoot had already been issued - just not in time to actually execute it - so their actions spared no decision.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Here's why I think the shootdown order IS the best thing to do:

On 9/11 three other hijacked airliners had been crashed into buildings - so I would argue that it was safe to count those on board as 'already dead'.

but this is where you have to consider how you tell if a flight has been hijacked

example is delta 1989, it was reported hijacked by boston ATC, but it wasnt hijacked, it landed safely in cleveland (and was searched for bombs, but nothign was found)

what if they had shot down 1989?

 

[T.A.M.]

I think in order for a hijacked airplane to be shot down, post 9/11, you would have to have the following:

1. Announced as being hijacked OR drop from Radar.
2. NOT RESPOND to communications from ATC (unlikely in a legit hijack for ransom).
3. Failure to land or comply with escort request from intercepting aircraft, despite visual contact with pilot.

If all of these were met, you can be guaranteed that the hijackers are to use the aircrafts as missiles/weapons, or to blow them up anyway, so a shoot down would be justified.

TAM