DeltaOwnsAll From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1173 posts, RR: 1 Posted (12 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2509 times:
The other day on CNN I saw that apparently a piece of the UA 93 757 was found six miles from the crash site. Also, a man on the plane reported "an explosion" and noticed white smoke coming from the plane...and afterwards was immediately disconnected. Now, the government claims that the people on the plane fought with the terrorists and eventually brought the plane down...however...the above evidence would suggest otherwise. It seems to me that the plane could either have been shot in the tail just enough to make it go down...or that the terrorists really had a bomb on the plane. What have you heard on this, and what are your opinions?
Climbout From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (12 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2362 times:
Hmmm..interesting. Well, according to the military, the jets were going after the UA plane but failed to get there in time to knock it out of the sky. The plane crashed (because of brave pax) six minutes before the jets arrived. Don't know if that's true or not, but that's what the military is saying.
Ryu2 From Taiwan, joined Aug 2002, 474 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (12 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2299 times:
I think that it's quite possible for a small air-to-air missile to not completely destroy something as big as a 757, especially if it didn't hit anything critical, like the fuel tanks, etc. Remember, a AAM's warhead is quite small.
Personally, I'm undecided, but shooting down is very possible, I think...
Ryu2 From Taiwan, joined Aug 2002, 474 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (12 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2287 times:
BTW, if it was REALLY not a shootdown, the best PR move the government could do would be to release at least the flight data recorder recording.
A shootdown would cause a rapid decompression event, which would be recorded as a sudden drop in cabin pressure. If they released the FDR, then an absence of such a event would probably eliminate the possibility of a shootdown.
The longer the govt doesn't release this info, the more suspicions will continue to grow about the TRUE fate of UA 93.
Jtb106 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (12 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2267 times:
If the hijackers knew that the hostages were rebelling and decided to put the plane into a dive as has been reported and in the process took the plane overspeed, what just might happen to that airplane?
It crashed with no assistance from the military.
DeltaOwnsAll From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1173 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (12 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2254 times:
Jtb106... there was a passenger of the flight on the phone at the time of the event...an explosion occured on the plane and smoke was observed.
I quote Time magazine, "He heard some sort of explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane. Then we lost contact with him." Now...a question for someone who knows...if the plane was in an overspeed...would it cause anything on the plane to "explode" and produce white smoke?
VirginA340 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 15 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (12 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2248 times:
Weather the plane was shot down or not. I don't know nor care as long as the people on the ground are safe We already know what happens when one of their planes reaches it's target. If I had happend to be that fighter pilots I'd shoot the plane down rather than letting it go to it's target and killing thousands. It's better to keep the toll as low as possible. A plane of less than 50 vs a building full of thousands. I ain't taking any chances. Within minutes it would've been over Metro Washinton DC. Onec that approaches a major US City then you've lost the opportuntiy. Better to shoot it down over a empty field tahn taking a chance and letting it get dagerously closer to a major city full of millions. I'd also support the downing of the other planes but unfortionatly our fighters didn't make it in time to save those in the WTC. If the fighters did get their on time we would only be mourning the loss of 210 not including the hijackers. The toll wouldn't be in the thousands like it is now.
HSV From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 171 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (12 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2229 times:
What sort of authorisation is required before a civilian aircraft can be shot down? Before September 11, wasn't presidential authorisation required? And if it was, it was very unlikely that there was time to make such a decision, which means that UA 93 crashed without any military intervention.
Ryu2 From Taiwan, joined Aug 2002, 474 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (12 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2218 times:
Probably, before September 11, presidential authorization was required.
Now, in its wake, the Air Force has authorized a general (forgot his name, but it's been reported in the media) but is in Tyndall AFB in Florida to authorize shootdown of civilian aircraft without presidential authority, and another general likewise for Alaska. USPACCOM has the authority for Hawaii.
I wonder what safeguards are in place to prevent abuse -- there should be a two man system, at least, like the system for nuclear launch.
Ryu2 From Taiwan, joined Aug 2002, 474 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (12 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2206 times:
Also, airspace directly over most major cities and many ohter places will now be prohibited (not just restricted) airspace. It's also now policy to shoot down aircraft incurring into such airspace as a last resort (before, the most that would happen was a slap on the wrist from the FAA)
I was actually surprised that the US had no such formal shootdown policy until now -- it's SOP for most other countries of the world, especially those with a real reason to be paranoid (eg, Taiwan, Korea, Israel).
DeltaOwnsAll From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1173 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (12 years 2 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 2190 times:
VirginA340- I feel the same way...I am simply wondering if it indeed was shot down and what other people think. And, as for the presidential approval...Vice President Cheney said in an interview that Bush gave the command to shoot down any hijacked planes.
HSV From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 171 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (12 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2164 times:
Even if fighter jets reached the planes that flew into the WTC in time, I doubt very much whether they would have been shot down.
Before September 11, no one would have imagined that hijackers would use aircraft as a flying bomb. In the past, hijackers have taken control of aircraft as a means of negotiating demands, not as a suicide mission.
Obviously, with the benefit of hindsight, it would have been better to shoot down all four of the civilian aircraft involved. But because such an event had never occurred before, there would have been hesisitation at shooting down a potentially innocent aircraft. It was a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't"
There is a possibility that UA 93 was shot down after it was known that three other aircraft had already crashed, but it would still require vital information from agencies such as the CIA to confirm that infact UA 93 was being hijacked. The president only had about 45 mins to make such a decision and there must have been overwhelming evidence from the CIA for him to authorise that the plane be shot down, if it was really shot down. And if it was shot down, there should be some serious finger pointing as to why the CIA did not prevent all the hijackings. One aircraft is hard enough to hijack, let alone four at the same time!
Tupolev154B2 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1332 posts, RR: 2 Reply 22, posted (12 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2125 times:
Guns ARE NOT a stupid option when it comes to dogfighting and I am pretty sure that when you are in one, it has got to be pretty difficult to keep locking your missiles on your target and firing them, especially when the aircraft are making such sudden maneuvers in short time.
L-1011-500 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 368 posts, RR: 2 Reply 23, posted (12 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2110 times:
Lephron - It was 1988, not 1986. It was an Iran Air A300 shot down over the Straits of Hormuz with 290 people killed. The ship that shot it down was the U.S.S. Vincennes.
Anyway - In regards to the main topic - I think the plane may have been shot down, and if it was, I honestly have no problem with it. The people on board were doomed anyway, and I think it's better for it to get shot down than become an airborne missile into a national landmark.
VirginA340 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 15 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (12 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2109 times:
The WTC is hardly a national landmark. Just a big pair of glaas and steel boxes with offices that held alot of people. But I'd still shoot down those planes in order to prevent thousands from being murdered compared to a mere 40-50 pax and crew.
25 IMissPiedmont: I'm wrong? Perish the thought! I really don't know for sure. I just thought that the Crusader was the last fighter equipped with guns. It does have th
26 Milesrich: I hate to give conspiracy theorists any fodder, but a friend of mine from Chicago whose brother is the head of an ATC site claims her brother said the
27 Mark_D.: Notwithstanding that this isn't the mil-aviation forum, IMissPiedmont got me to look at a few links: (y'just maybe missed the words 'primarily designe
28 Mark_D.: Milesrich I think Ari lost maybe 3 of his 9 WH-Spokesman career lives, with that "we have real and credible evidence" (which sounded a whole lot like
29 Pilot1113: >>Then Bush runs for cover at Offut, and then orders >>planes shot down in future. Okay... so you're saying he should have returned to the White House
30 RoyalDutch: Along the topic of the military shooting down airliners, the Soviets really screwed up on KAL 007...actually flew within visual distance, got a good l
31 WunalaDreaming: I don't want to start a fight and I don;t want this to sound horrible or detrimental etc. BUT, The US government may have a huge coverup on this one.