deltaownsall
Posts: 1091
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2001 3:25 pm

UA 93 - Shot Down?

Sat Sep 29, 2001 8:19 am

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
 
PanAm747
Posts: 4713
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 4:46 am

RE: UA 93 - Shot Down?

Sat Sep 29, 2001 8:33 am

>>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!
 
Guest

RE: UA 93 - Shot Down?

Sat Sep 29, 2001 8:35 am

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.
 
airbus380
Posts: 1575
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 6:50 am

RE: UA 93 - Shot Down?

Sat Sep 29, 2001 8:57 am

NO. IT WAS NOT. END of discussion!!!
 
ryu2
Posts: 1546
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2002 8:18 am

RE: UA 93 - Shot Down?

Sat Sep 29, 2001 9:13 am

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...
 
deltaownsall
Posts: 1091
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2001 3:25 pm

RE: UA 93 - Shot Down?

Sat Sep 29, 2001 9:14 am

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?
 
ryu2
Posts: 1546
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2002 8:18 am

RE: UA 93 - Shot Down?

Sat Sep 29, 2001 9:17 am

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.
 
NWA
Posts: 1162
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2001 2:31 am

RE: UA 93 - Shot Down?

Sat Sep 29, 2001 9:18 am

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.
 
kaitakfan
Posts: 1482
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 1999 1:04 pm

RE: UA 93 - Shot Down?

Sat Sep 29, 2001 9:20 am

so Airbus380... you seem to know all... what did happen to that airplane then???
 
kaitakfan
Posts: 1482
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 1999 1:04 pm

RE: UA 93 - Shot Down?

Sat Sep 29, 2001 9:22 am

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

RE: UA 93 - Shot Down?

Sat Sep 29, 2001 9:32 am

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.
 
deltaownsall
Posts: 1091
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2001 3:25 pm

RE: UA 93 - Shot Down?

Sat Sep 29, 2001 9:41 am

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
 
VirginA340
Posts: 2556
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 12:35 pm

RE: UA 93 - Shot Down?

Sat Sep 29, 2001 9:57 am

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"
 
HSV
Posts: 156
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 5:07 pm

RE: UA 93 - Shot Down?

Sat Sep 29, 2001 10:16 am

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
Posts: 1546
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2002 8:18 am

RE: UA 93 - Shot Down?

Sat Sep 29, 2001 10:20 am

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
Posts: 1546
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2002 8:18 am

RE: UA 93 - Shot Down?

Sat Sep 29, 2001 10:26 am

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.
 
deltaownsall
Posts: 1091
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2001 3:25 pm

RE: UA 93 - Shot Down?

Sat Sep 29, 2001 11:02 am

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
Posts: 156
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 5:07 pm

RE: UA 93 - Shot Down?

Sat Sep 29, 2001 11:58 am

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!
 
lehpron
Posts: 6846
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 3:42 am

RE: UA 93 - Shot Down?

Sat Sep 29, 2001 12:06 pm

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.
 
flyinghighboy
Posts: 722
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2001 8:06 pm

RE: UA 93 - Shot Down?

Sat Sep 29, 2001 12:24 pm

What happened after the Iran Airbus was shot down. What was the reaction from the American public and the world?
 
IMissPiedmont
Posts: 6200
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 12:58 pm

RE: UA 93 - Shot Down?

Sat Sep 29, 2001 12:34 pm

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.
The day you stop learning is the day you should die.
 
FlyBoeing
Posts: 835
Joined: Fri May 05, 2000 2:08 am

RE: UA 93 - Shot Down?

Sat Sep 29, 2001 12:42 pm

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.
 
tupolev154b2
Posts: 1269
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2000 9:01 am

RE: UA 93 - Shot Down?

Sat Sep 29, 2001 1:24 pm

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
Posts: 359
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2000 2:40 pm

RE: UA 93 - Shot Down?

Sat Sep 29, 2001 2:20 pm

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
Posts: 2556
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 12:35 pm

RE: UA 93 - Shot Down?

Sat Sep 29, 2001 2:25 pm

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"
 
IMissPiedmont
Posts: 6200
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 12:58 pm

RE: FlyBoeing

Sat Sep 29, 2001 2:44 pm

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 the unofficial nickname " The last of the gunfighters". I guess I'd better recheck my sources. I must admit that I don't know much about the current F series aircraft. Live and learn.

Steve
The day you stop learning is the day you should die.
 
milesrich
Posts: 1508
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 2:46 am

RE: UA 93 - Shot Down?

Sat Sep 29, 2001 2:47 pm

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 same thing. And now it turns out, there is ABSOLUTELY no proof that the plane was heading for Air Force One or the White House, as Ari Fleisher claimed. (Shades of Al Gore, don't you think.) Then Bush runs for cover at Offut, and then orders planes shot down in future.

Could be. I trust W the way the Republicans trusted Bill Clinton. Additionally Dick Cheney was asked about this by Tim Russert on Meet the Press on 9/16, and while he denied it, he looked uncomfortable when asked the question about it.
 
Mark_D.
Posts: 1360
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2001 9:55 am

RE: UA 93 - Shot Down?

Sat Sep 29, 2001 2:47 pm

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 designed for', when you refered to modern fighters, and guns)

http://www.cloudnet.com/~djohnson/
http://www-acala1.ria.army.mil/LC/cs/csa/aagatlin.htm

I don't know if UA 93 was gunned down. Whatever happened, the passengers' decision to do battle with the hijacker bandits forever will be to their credit and honoured remembrance.
 
Mark_D.
Posts: 1360
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2001 9:55 am

RE: UA 93 - Shot Down?

Sat Sep 29, 2001 2:56 pm

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 "real incredible evidence") little performance.

I didn't see Cheney with Russert asking that question, but I know what you mean about his not being too happy with questions he's not comfortable fielding.
 
Pilot1113
Posts: 2276
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 1999 1:42 pm

RE: UA 93 - Shot Down?

Sat Sep 29, 2001 3:16 pm

>>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 and risked getting killed?

No one knew what the hell was going on that day. No one knew what building was safe. Everything was in massive confusion.

I totally agree with the Secret Service's decision to secure the President, Vice President, and Speaker of the House. To say otherwise would be stupid.

- Neil Harrison
 
RoyalDutch
Posts: 862
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2001 9:51 pm

RE: UA 93 - Shot Down?

Sat Sep 29, 2001 3:50 pm

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 look at it, and then blew it out of the sky. Pretty pathetic if you ask me. As far as UA 93 is concerned, I think that if they shot it down, it was a wise decision, because like many others have said, it was the choice beteween 50 or so lives on that plane and hundreds, if not thousands, on the ground.
 
WunalaDreaming
Posts: 189
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2001 4:44 pm

RE: UA 93 - Shot Down?

Sat Sep 29, 2001 7:46 pm

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. We may never know what actually happened.

They need their nation on side for this fight... they will not doing anything to upset them at this critical point.
 
hoons90
Posts: 3159
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2001 10:15 pm

RE: UA 93 - Shot Down?

Sat Sep 29, 2001 8:12 pm

This is for Bin Laden

The biggest mistake made by most human beings: Listening to only half, understanding just a quarter and telling double.
 
serge
Posts: 1903
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 2:01 pm

RE: UA 93 - Shot Down?

Sun Sep 30, 2001 5:34 am

hehe, the bottom one is bin laden
 
rootsgirl
Posts: 512
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2001 3:48 am

RE: UA 93 - Shot Down?

Sun Sep 30, 2001 5:49 am

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 what the explosion was.
 
albatross
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 5:24 pm

RE: UA 93 - Shot Down?

Sun Sep 30, 2001 6:21 am

The U.S. did acknowledge that it shot down the Iraninan A300 almost immediatly after it happened, not 3 years later.
 
deltaownsall
Posts: 1091
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2001 3:25 pm

RE: UA 93 - Shot Down?

Sun Sep 30, 2001 8:29 am

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 little remote controls...but I believe that that was a fake threat to ward off a possible passenger uprising.
 
cedarjet
Posts: 8103
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

RE: UA 93 - Shot Down?

Sun Sep 30, 2001 10:05 am

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 happens when the cabin suffers an explosive decompression, so the aircraft was breaking up in midair, at a reasonable altitude, probably without catching fire; and (2) the destruction at the crash scene was the worst I have ever seen, I was looking at one of MacAthur Job's excellent Air Disaster books and I saw that the destruction of THY's DC10 that went into a forest at 800mph wasn't nearly as complete as US93. Someone on CNN said the biggest piece of wreckage was the size of an A4 sheet of paper.

All of which points to a shooting down. I don't believe any of the hijackers were carrying bombs, they had to get through the admittedly lax security and a bomb would be a lot more troublesome to get on board than a few knives and box cutters.

That all said, the government wouldn't really need to hide it, I think the entire nation would wholeheartedly support the decision - better 100 dead in open countryside than a major city hit and thousands of dead, and possibly the parliment or presidential residence obliterated too (UA93 was heading for Washington, and the Pentagon was apparently the target intended for the AA 757, which means the Capitol and White House were probably spared by the crash in Pennsylvania).

When do we get a CVR transcript? They must have recovered the Pennsylvania and Pentagon black boxes by now?
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
 
deltaownsall
Posts: 1091
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2001 3:25 pm

RE: UA 93 - Shot Down?

Sun Sep 30, 2001 10:23 am

Cedarjet- Interesting thoughts. Yes, they recovered the "Black" box. However, it is illegal to give the information to the public...the only way that we get them is when the transcript or recording somehow slips out. Unfortunately, I doubt that this one will be allowed to slip out considering the situation and its origin.
DeltaOwnsAll
 
cedarjet
Posts: 8103
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

Any Airlines Flown As Many Typesas Air France?

Sun Sep 30, 2001 10:29 am

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)
DC10

707-120 and -320
727-200 (not sure about the -100)
737-200, -300 (I think), -500
747-100, -200, -300, -400 incl freighters and combis where available
767-200, -300
777-200 (-300 on order?)

A300-B2, -B4 (no -600s?)
A310-200, -300
A319
A320-100, -200
A321
A330
A340-200, -300 (-500 / -600 on order?)

CV880 (sub lease - silver fuselage with the old Navy AF livery, mmm)
CV990 (sub lease - silver fuselage with the old Navy AF livery, mmm)

F28
F100

Caravelle
BAe 146 (wet lease)
TriStar (brief wet lease)
CRJ

Concorde.

Any other airline come close? Maybe LH (all the above except Fokkers, Caravelle, L1011, A330, 757, some 747 models and of course Concorde). BA had some good semi-unique stuff like the VC10 and Trident. But Air France should definitely cut the caffeine levels in the Purchasing Department.
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
 
ryu2
Posts: 1546
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2002 8:18 am

RE: UA 93 - Shot Down?

Sun Sep 30, 2001 11:30 am

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 hijacking PLUS those on the ground, but YET has a new policy of shooting down airliners -- a move that will, though it may save lives on the ground, will surely kill everyone aboard a airliner?

Sad

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos