9/11 highjacked aircraft shot out of the skies.

An even bigger and more circus like commission of people stting around in suits pointing fingers at one another.

0 Replies

If the Air Force has shot down the 9/11 planes there would still be NY's World Trade Centers and the Pentagon would not have crumbled and many innocent people would have been saved. On the flip side, people on the ground would still have died as well as all the people in the planes. And our government would have taken the blame still. No easy answers.

0 Replies

I heard on the 9/11 commission that the Israeli's have some kind of thing that grounds the plane if hijackers get control of it. So maybe such a horrible choice would not be required.

In any event, didn't one flight make such a heroic decision to go down with the plane rather than let the hijackers succeed with their plans? Not that I am in any way saying something bad about the other planes and the passengers, just commenting on their efforts. (I forgot which plane it was)

(I think the 9/11 commission has been very informative and impartial as a whole.)

I don't think that the administration would have been blamed if that was the only choice they had to save more lives that would be killed if they shot down any hijacked planes.

0 Replies

Revel
If none of the planes hit the mark the question would have been how do we know what the intent of the highjackers was. At this point in hindsight we know but: you can fill in the rest.

0 Replies

The government was in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. There would have be just as big a stink if they had shot the planes down. The correct answer was to either not let these people on board, or have marshals on board to prevent the takeover. But that too is hind sight.

0 Replies

Right. I've wondered the same.
And now we hear that Cheney did give orders to shoot them down... but not in time.
It wouldn't have gone over well. And in that scenario, it wouldn't matter who was president. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
My question now is what are we doing to prevent another attack?
Our nuke plants are still not adequately protected, and nobody even keeps track of half the weapons-grade radioactive material around the world.

0 Replies

When there was some thought, that at least one plane was headed for the WhiteHouse, I believe, there were plans to have fighters shoot the planes out of the sky.

Not a pleasant thought!

0 Replies

au1929-Your right. I never thought of that.

But actually I was thinking of the one that came later after we did know what they were going to do because they did it to the WTC. I don't think anyone could have done anything to prevent that from happening once it was already in progress because no one was expecting them to ram into the buildings. But after that happened they were aware of what they were going to do.

If you watched 9/11 commission, the Bush administration scrambled around and wasted alot of time and miscommunicated orders. Not to mention Bush reading for seven minuets.

0 Replies

Revel
Remember there are a lot of big words in books like, see spot run. Laughing

0 Replies

Quote:

My question now is what are we doing to prevent another attack?

We won't know what to do til the Commission tells us based on it's findings. :wink:

Here's the September 11th Commission's mission statement:

"The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, an independent bipartisan commission created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush in late 2002, is chartered to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. The Commission is also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks."

0 Replies

How about the airline executives gathering at a three martini lunch and deciding with the terrorist threats that they should stiffen up the security?

0 Replies

Brand X wrote:

We won't know what to do til the Commission tells us based on it's findings.

The decision to shoot a civilian airline out of the sky is a horrible one. Remember the US shot an Iranian plane down in the Persian Gulf by mistake and the results were horrific. No one wants that responsiblity and every one is looking for cover.

0 Replies

Why weren't they shot down?

If I wrote a novel about a passenger aircraft (let alone 4) being hijacked by Chechens in Sweden, flown over Finland into Russia, over St Petersberg tracked by Russian air defence all the way to Moscow where it slammed into the Kremlin, it would not be credible. The plane would have been shot down or forced to land long before it got anywhere near the Kremlin.

So why did the F16s at Andrews Airforce base (mission statement: "To protect the District of Columbia"), only a dozen miles from the Pentagon, sit on the tarmac contrary to standard operational procedures whilst a passenger jet hijacked over an hour before was allowed to slam into one of the most sensitive installations in the United States?

What were they doing? Watching tv coverage from New York? No one told them about the plane heading their way? Why didnt they get up there and take a looksee as they were supposed to do? Remember Payne Stuart? His aircraft was tailed within a few minutes of deviating from its flight plan.

I believe the American military, airforce and command structure is capable of panic, confusion and all manner of incompetence, like any other military. But I don't believe they could be THAT incompetent.

0 Replies

Supposedly the order coming from Bush, <snicker> was given to shoot the aircraft down but was never relayed to the pilots. Conveniently there is no record of that only the word of Cheney and Bush. {Two of the most reliable sources in government}.
Anybody want to buy a bridge?

0 Replies

bushs approval rate would be at 17% and the dems could run anyone they damn well pleased, skip the convention, the campaigning, the tv ad media ads and just stick someone on the ballot and win in a landslide......

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

If I wrote a novel about a passenger aircraft (let alone 4) being hijacked by Chechens in Sweden, flown over Finland into Russia, over St Petersberg tracked by Russian air defence all the way to Moscow where it slammed into the Kremlin, it would not be credible.

"Of course truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to stick to the possibilities."

Mark Twain

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Why weren't they shot down?

If I wrote a novel about a passenger aircraft (let alone 4) being hijacked by Chechens in Sweden, flown over Finland into Russia, over St Petersberg tracked by Russian air defence all the way to Moscow where it slammed into the Kremlin, it would not be credible. The plane would have been shot down or forced to land long before it got anywhere near the Kremlin.

So why did the F16s at Andrews Airforce base (mission statement: "To protect the District of Columbia"), only a dozen miles from the Pentagon, sit on the tarmac contrary to standard operational procedures whilst a passenger jet hijacked over an hour before was allowed to slam into one of the most sensitive installations in the United States?

What were they doing? Watching tv coverage from New York? No one told them about the plane heading their way? Why didnt they get up there and take a looksee as they were supposed to do? Remember Payne Stuart? His aircraft was tailed within a few minutes of deviating from its flight plan.

I believe the American military, airforce and command structure is capable of panic, confusion and all manner of incompetence, like any other military. But I don't believe they could be THAT incompetent.

Maybe you should read a bit of the commission report. Andrews AFB has NO active duty fighter/interceptors assigned. There is a National Guard unit that has fighters but they aren't a part of NORAD (and as such, not part of the NORAD communications system) and being that it was a weekday the people that fly those planes would have been at work at their civilian jobs.

Not every Air Force installation has planes capable of shooting down another plane and even those that do don't just leave them sitting out on the runway fully loaded with weapons and fuel waiting for something like this to happen.

The claims you make have been espoused and debunked numerous times over, including by the 9/11 commission.

0 Replies

Quote:

Andrews AFB has NO active duty fighter/interceptors assigned.

Now yes, on 11th September 2001, it did. I believe they lied about the F16s that were available.

Quote:

that it was a weekday the people that fly those planes would have been at work at their civilian jobs.

Well in that case its a good job that nothing serious happened on 9/11. Laughing

Quote:

Not every Air Force installation has planes capable of shooting down another plane and even those that do don't just leave them sitting out on the runway fully loaded with weapons and fuel waiting for something like this to happen.

So when NORAD shout, they have to find a plane, fuel it, arm it and find that bloke driving a taxi to go and fly it. No way. As soon as any aircraft deviates from its pre logged flight plan, air traffic control want to know why. If they get no response they don't phone up the chain of command until they find someone authorised to lauch an intercept mission. Its standard procedure to get someone up there to take a look. And yes there are intercept aircraft available at all times to do just that.

As for my "theories" being debunked...well I never expoused any theory.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Now yes, on 11th September 2001, it did. I believe they lied about the F16s that were available.

Yes. Everyone is lying about it including the 9/11 commission. Rolling Eyes

Tell me, exactly how many times have you been to Andrews AFB on a weekday to see how many people are around in that Air National Guard unit?

Quote:

So when NORAD shout, they have to find a plane, fuel it, arm it and find that bloke driving a taxi to go and fly it. No way.

NORAD has interceptor aircraft ready and on alert at 5 locations in North America - Otis ANGB on Cape Cod, Langley AFB in VA, Homestead ANGB in FL, March AFB in CA and McChord AFB in WA. Other than those, the only facilities NORAD has control over is the Cheyene Mt. complex in Colorado Springs which has no aircraft at all and the interceptors at Keflavik NAS in Iceland. There are no other interceptor aircraft sitting on any runway loaded with fuel and weapons ready to fly at a moments notice anywhere in North America other that at those 5 locations.

The aircraft at Andrews AFB are not, and never have been, a part of or under the control of NORAD.

Quote:

As soon as any aircraft deviates from its pre logged flight plan, air traffic control want to know why. If they get no response they don't phone up the chain of command until they find someone authorised to lauch an intercept mission. Its standard procedure to get someone up there to take a look. And yes there are intercept aircraft available at all times to do just that.

It's standard procedure huh? Really? I have a few thousand friends that would like to know the source of this procedure since they are the people that maintain and fly those interceptor aircraft and they've never heard of any such procedure. The engineers the work down the hallway from me and are responsible for building the communications systems for NORAD haven't seen anyone define that requirement for them either.

If you think every civilian air traffic controller out there has some magic authority to call the Air Force and scramble fighters you are sadly mistaken.

0 Replies

9/11 highjacked aircraft shot out of the skies.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know