Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
UA 93 - Shot Down?  
User currently offlineDeltaOwnsAll From United States of America, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 1173 posts, RR: 1
Posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3009 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?
DeltaOwnsAll

40 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2871 times:

>>It seems to me that the plane could either have been shot in the tail just enough to make it go down...<<

I doubt that, any air to air missle would have completely destroyed that 757. It wouldn't just deliver "minor damage".



Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
User currently offlineClimbout From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2862 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.

User currently offlineAirbus380 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2834 times:

NO. IT WAS NOT. END of discussion!!!

User currently offlineRyu2 From Taiwan, joined Aug 2002, 490 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2799 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...


User currently offlineDeltaOwnsAll From United States of America, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 1173 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2801 times:

hmmm... good point PanAm747...but that still leaves the question...why would a piece of the plane just fall off six miles from the crash site?

User currently offlineRyu2 From Taiwan, joined Aug 2002, 490 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2787 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.


User currently offlineNWA From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 1200 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2786 times:

Who said they used missles, guns are an option, and they are cheaper.


23 victor, turn right heading 210, maintain 3000 till established, cleared ILS runwy 24.
User currently offlineKaiTakFan From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1588 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2785 times:

so Airbus380... you seem to know all... what did happen to that airplane then???

User currently offlineKaiTakFan From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1588 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2782 times:

Airbus380... it seems you know all... well what did happen to that airplane then??

User currently offlineJtb106 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2767 times:

Get real.
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.


User currently offlineDeltaOwnsAll From United States of America, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 1173 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2754 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?
DeltaOwnsAll


User currently offlineVirginA340 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 15 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2748 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.


"FUIMUS"
User currently offlineHSV From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 171 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2729 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.

User currently offlineRyu2 From Taiwan, joined Aug 2002, 490 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2718 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.


User currently offlineRyu2 From Taiwan, joined Aug 2002, 490 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2706 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).

See http://www.aopa.org/ for the down low.


User currently offlineDeltaOwnsAll From United States of America, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 1173 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2690 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.


User currently offlineHSV From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 171 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2664 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!


User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 18, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2659 times:

Remember back in 1986, the USN "accidently" shot down an Iranian Airbus, claiming it was an F-14; they denied it for at least 3 years.

Think about it.

BTW, I didn't say anything yet.  Smile



The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineFlyinghighboy From Australia, joined Aug 2001, 749 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2649 times:

What happened after the Iran Airbus was shot down. What was the reaction from the American public and the world?

User currently offlineIMissPiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6277 posts, RR: 34
Reply 20, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2642 times:

3 observations.

NWA, guns were not an option. The last of the gunfighters was the Crusader. No modern fighter/intercept aircraft has guns.

HSV, before 9/11 presidential authorization was required to shoot down an airliner. Now there are two flag rank officers with full authority on this.

FLT 93 was not shot down.



Quit calling an airport ramp "Tarmac" and a taxiway "runway".
User currently offlineFlyBoeing From United States of America, joined May 2000, 866 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2639 times:

IMissPiedmont

guns were not an option. The last of the gunfighters was the Crusader. No modern fighter/intercept aircraft has guns.

Guns ARE an option, my friend. The only modern interceptor without an M61 internal 20mm gun is the F-4 Phantom, which stupidly didn't have one as the "missile age" made it unneccesary.

They are a stupid option, since they're not guided, each shell has a small warhead, and you have to get in close to use them. But they are an option.


User currently offlineTupolev154B2 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1332 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2625 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.

User currently offlineL-1011-500 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 368 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2610 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.


User currently offlineVirginA340 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 15 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2609 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.


"FUIMUS"
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 Post contains links 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.
32 Post contains images Hoons90 : This is for Bin Laden
33 Post contains images Serge : hehe, the bottom one is bin laden
34 Rootsgirl : Was a bomb not reported t be on that aircraft? I recall a passenger telling his wife "they say they have a bomb". Maybe the bomb went off and that's w
35 Albatross : The U.S. did acknowledge that it shot down the Iraninan A300 almost immediatly after it happened, not 3 years later.
36 DeltaOwnsAll : Rootsgirl- I have great doubt that the hijackers had any bombs. They were reported to have "things that look like bombs" around their waists with litt
37 Cedarjet : RE UA93, the two thoughts that struck me based on what I've seen on the box and the above, are (1) "white smoke", actually condensation, is what happe
38 DeltaOwnsAll : Cedarjet- Interesting thoughts. Yes, they recovered the "Black" box. However, it is illegal to give the information to the public...the only way that
39 Cedarjet : Every jet I can think of has flown in the colours of Air France, except maybe the DC9 and 757. Here's what I can think of: DC8 (sub lease - I think) D
40 Post contains images Ryu2 : What I don't understand is why Bush is against pilots with guns in cockpits -- a move that could potentially save the lives of all onboard in a hijack
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
How Fast Did UA 93 Go Down? posted Wed Mar 6 2002 16:12:22 by Arsenal@LHR
Was The UA 752 SHot Down? posted Fri Sep 14 2001 14:43:34 by IndianGuy
F-16 Shot Down UA 93? posted Tue Sep 18 2001 17:30:08 by Stretch 8
UA "slow Down" @ORD Sun/Mon? posted Sun Jul 30 2006 03:40:15 by Tsaord
VN Pilots Take A Nap - B777 Almost Shot Down posted Sat Jun 17 2006 23:06:36 by ZakHH
Official: Paris UA Base Closing Down May 1st 2006 posted Thu Jan 26 2006 02:03:52 by Aifos
UA #93, Land Back To The Owners Today. posted Mon Aug 1 2005 21:44:45 by Aa777jr
Commercial A/c Shot Down At War posted Sat Apr 23 2005 18:55:11 by B752fanatic
Biman Plan For 2 More Planes Shot Down posted Wed Jan 5 2005 19:14:43 by AirbusCanada
? About Iran Air A300 That Was Shot Down.... posted Wed Dec 15 2004 03:45:02 by Pilotaydin