Fourth hijacked flight shot down?

[wabe0x90]

What is the chances of a flight crashing into the Pennsylvania countryside due to some sort of internal fight? Doesn't that seem weird? Wouldn't hijackers, if they win, keep the flight towards DC, and passengers, if they win, keep the nose up, at least?

Also, what are the chances pieces of the plane would start coming off on the way down, and end up eight miles away?

I'm not certain I believe the government's story that the plane was forced down by internal action - but I'd certainly like to hear the Straight Dope on the matter.

[UDS]

As I understand it, if a large aircraft is put through excessively violent manoeuvres, it suffers strains which the airframe cannot withstand. The breakup of the aircraft in the air follows.

A brawl in the cockpit could have this effect, surely?

[wabe0x90]

I dunno - there's another story listed about a 747 doing a roll or loop which says it maybe could do it I think, if you were stupid enough to try. I'm relying on memory here though.

The cockpit's not that big. I mean, maybe they'd be kicking around the steering wheel, but if you just throw a plane into a dive, I don't think it's going to come into pieces.

[Fish Cheer]

Originally posted by wabe0x90
I dunno - there's another story listed about a 747 doing a roll or loop which says it maybe could do it I think, if you were stupid enough to try. I'm relying on memory here though.

For the sake of completeness:

Is it possible to loop or roll a 747 jet?

[mister_me]

Originally posted by wabe0x90
What is the chances of a flight crashing into the Pennsylvania countryside due to some sort of internal fight? Doesn't that seem weird?

Doesn't seem any weirder than a bunch of nut-jobs highjacking the planes in the first place.


I've read the 'shot down' theory on several webpages and don't believe it, BUT,............

Even it was shot down, I wouldn't blame them (Gov.) for doing it! I mean, imagine the devestation (based on the earlier attacks on WTC) that could have occured.

like I said, I don't think it was shot down but if it was and I found out about it, I would say, good job!

[vibrotronica]

I don't believe it was shot down, either. I don't think the Air Force had enough time to get an armed plane into position to do the job. But is there any consensus on exactly how the passengers brought the plane down? Did they just burst into the cockpit, fight with the hijackers, and point the stick toward the ground? Did they blow the door and depressurize the cabin? It seems like that would have been easier. Do we know how they did it?

[wabe0x90]

I'd like to know why you don't think the Air Force had enough time to get a plane into shot range. I'm fairly sure they DID, but the math would be good to see.

[bdgr]

I dont think we will ever know....Its possible it was shot down. Its possible it crashed due to the fight. If the government shot it down, they sure wouldnt tell us. I wouldnt blame them if it they did shoot it down.

[carnivorousplant]

The voice recorder was played for relatives. I wonder how much they heard.

[Kilt-wearin' man]

Everything I've seen (including eyewitness reports from the ground and air traffic control tapes) states that the F-16's arrived several minutes after the airliner crashed - too late to have had anything to do with it.

This issue has been rehashed and rehashed on this board and others and in the end, it's meaningless since the plane crashed in PA, not DC, whether brought down by a missile or by the passengers. Since there is actual evidence (cell phone conversations and background noise) that the passengers rushed the cockpit, that's the conclusion I'll stick with. You're right on one point, wabe0x90 - the cockpit's not that big. Several pissed off passengers who know they have nothing to lose crowding into the cockpit to drag the hijackers away from the controls would have a bad effect on the plane's flight path. Remember, it takes very little airspace to put a plane into a dive, but a lot of altitude to pull it out - especially at high speed, and it's been pointed out by investigators that the terrorists had those airliners moving as fast as they would go.

[RadioWave]

The voice recorders were released and available to the media. They indicated that after the cell phone calls, the passengers did gain access to the cockpit and struggle with the terrorists. It seems very plausible that during the struggle, the plane (a Boeing 757) was pushed beyond its limits and started to break up in the air. Either way, once it was in a high speed dive, its very unlikely that the untrained passengers or poorly trained terrorists could have saved it.

Furthermore, having been around USAF bases most of my life, I can tell you that even at altitude, fast moving fighters are extremely loud and someone in Pennsylvania should have noticed them if they were anywhere near the scene of the impact.

Snopes mentions the voice recorders.

[Monty]

Originally posted by wabe0x90
What is the chances of a flight crashing into the Pennsylvania countryside due to some sort of internal fight?

Apparently, 100%.

Doesn't that seem weird?

Why?

Wouldn't hijackers, if they win, keep the flight towards DC,

If the hijackers had remained in control, then they certainly would've continued on their course.

and passengers, if they win, keep the nose up, at least?

Depending on how many passengers knew how to fly the aircraft. There's bound to be more than just "grab the wheel and aim" to keeping a rather large aircraft level and pointed in a particular direction. Of course, there's also the issue of landing the thing. A jumbo jet in the air is not someone's compact auto on the highway.

Also, what are the chances pieces of the plane would start coming off on the way down, and end up eight miles away?

There used to be a term in military aviation, "TFOA", which means "Things Falling Off Aircraft." As mentioned above, this particular aircraft was subjected to more than the anticipated stress and thus started to fall apart.

I'm not certain I believe the government's story that the plane was forced down by internal action - but I'd certainly like to hear the Straight Dope on the matter.

Why don't you believe the government's reports?

[minty green]

There is also the distinct possibility that the hijackers intentionally crashed the craft when it became clear that they would not be able to retain control of the airplane. Once the passengers broke into the cockpit, the hijackers had lost control of the situation for all intents and purposes.

The crash scene is inconsistent with a midair breakup--it's one giant hole in the ground, not pieces strewn over miles of ground. To me, that indicates an intentional crash rather than loss of control/extreme maneuvering. YMMV.

[shelbo]

The "plane shot down" theory would also require the somewhat unlikely cooincidence of the plane being shot down at the precise time the passengers rushed the cockpit (based on the voice recorder data, which we have). Not impossible, but with no evidence to show that it did happen that way, and evidence that, in fact F-16s arrived after the crash, it seems a little silly to believe that the government shot it down, and is now covering up that fact. (But, hey, I guess some people like to believe that the government is involved in everything, and is really, really good at keeping secrets!)

[aahala]

Originally posted by wabe0x90

I'm not certain I believe the government's story that the plane was forced down by internal action - but I'd certainly like to hear the Straight Dope on the matter.

Believing something without any evidence one way or another is called faith.

Believing something completely contrary to all available evidence is called foolish.

[Bongmaster]

I don't know how much this means if anything, but I have been flying MS Flight sims since they first came out. I've tried many times to do crazy stuff in the larger aircraft provided in the game, and have successfully managed loops, (sloppy) barrel rolls, and other crazy stuff. Its a fairly accurate flight model, but I don't know if this translates at all into real life.

[Scuba_Ben]

Originally posted by vibrotronica
I don't believe it was shot down, either.... Did they just burst into the cockpit, fight with the hijackers, and point the stick toward the ground? Did they blow the door and depressurize the cabin? It seems like that would have been easier. Do we know how they did it?

I seem to recall (possibly from movie-mistakes.com) that aircraft cabin doors open in-then-out. If this is true, then blowing a door requires opening it AGAINST pressure.

Can anybody confirm how the cabin doors operate?

[Weary]

I have no theories either way...however...I would like to know how we managed to get a camera crew live in Afghanistan minutes after the bombing started yet it was several hours before one news team managed to make it ot the crash site of the PA. Plane

[carnivorousplant]

I dunno. PA is a big state. How long did it take CNN to get a camera crew to the trapped miners?

[Fish Cheer]

Originally posted by Monty
There's bound to be more than just "grab the wheel and aim" to keeping a rather large aircraft level and pointed in a particular direction. Of course, there's also the issue of landing the thing. A jumbo jet in the air is not someone's compact auto on the highway.

Of course not. But I guess that there's a big difference between actions leading to a nose-down crash and actions required to keep the plane at least level (forget about the direction for now) until you can radio anyone who will tell you what to do to get it to the ground safely.
A difference laymen should be able to recognize.

[Patty O'Furniture]

Can anybody confirm how the cabin doors operate?

Cecil can.

[MrTuffPaws]

Many are stating that we have voice recorder data, and cell phone calls. Can anyone give a link to them, or a reason why they have not been made public?

[kunilou]

One other detail I haven't seen mentioned yet. I recall a military spokesman saying the Air Force had already received permission to shoot down the plane if needed, and would have shot down the plane, but didn't get there in time.

So why wouldn't the Air Force have admitted to shooting down the plane? Certainly, that would be a bigger deterrent to any potential hijackers still out there than saying "we would have, but couldn't."

[Jonathan Chance]

Yep. It's difficult at best, to do it.

[zut]

Originally posted by Weary
I have no theories either way...however...I would like to know how we managed to get a camera crew live in Afghanistan minutes after the bombing started yet it was several hours before one news team managed to make it ot the crash site of the PA. Plane

Perhaps you don't recall, but there was a fairly large pre-9/11 Afghanistan story involving aid workers detained by the Taliban. For example, note the date on this CNN story. I imagine it would be pretty easy to get a camera crew to Afghanistan when they were already there. All in all, not very mysterious.

[Skammer]

To expand on what Shelbo said, why wouldn't the government admit shooting the plane down, if that's what happened? They've said they would have, if they had been able to. They said they would try, if it ever happened again. I don't think they would have to cover it up if they had been successful.

[Kilt-wearin' man]

Originally posted by MrTuffPaws
Many are stating that we have voice recorder data, and cell phone calls. Can anyone give a link to them, or a reason why they have not been made public?

You mean more public than having sections of recorded cell phone calls played on CNN and other news outlets? The FAA never releases cockpit voice recordings (transcripts yes, actual voice recordings no), but other recordings from this incident have been broadcast on the evening news. How much more "released" do they need to be?

[Tuckerfan]

Originally posted by kunilou
One other detail I haven't seen mentioned yet. I recall a military spokesman saying the Air Force had already received permission to shoot down the plane if needed, and would have shot down the plane, but didn't get there in time.

So why wouldn't the Air Force have admitted to shooting down the plane? Certainly, that would be a bigger deterrent to any potential hijackers still out there than saying "we would have, but couldn't."

Except that the first planes on the scene were from a training flight and unarmed. They would have done whatever it took to bring the plane down, however.

Additionally, there's an impact crater in PA, not a debris field. Had the plane been shot down, there would have been a debris field. Also, there was a seismic wave created by the crash of the plane that was detected by instruments, from this, one can calculate not only the speed with which the plane crashed, but also how much of it crashed into the ground at the same time. Had anything but the intact airframe crashed into PA, the seismic wave created would have been too faint to be detected by the instruments.

[ataraxy22]

That plane was going to be coming down short of DC one way or another...if the passengers hadn't taken care of it, the Air Force would have.

[Broomstick]

Ah, THIS again -- you know, we hashed this out at least once before since Sept 2001?

Originally posted by wabe0x90
What is the chances of a flight crashing into the Pennsylvania countryside due to some sort of internal fight?

Pretty high. Imagine you're going down the freeway in a car and a fight breaks out between the driver and the front seat passenger. The ride will get exciting, yes? All over the road? Think it's quite possible that will end in an accident?

Imagine you're in a jet and a fight breaks out in the cockpit. People flinging themselves about in a very tight space, bashing the controls as well as each other. Do you think the airplane will continue on a straight and level course? I don't. I expect the ride will make the average roller-coaster look pretty boring.

Doesn't that seem weird?

No. Does it seem weird to you? Why?

Wouldn't hijackers, if they win, keep the flight towards DC

Yes. Assuming they regain control of the plane prior to a crash.

and passengers, if they win, keep the nose up, at least?

If they can. Tell me, good sir (assuming you are a "sir") if you suddenly found youself in the cockpit of a 757 with no concious pilot in sight would YOU know what to do?

That's actually a little unfair. There was at least one other pilot riding as a passenger on that flight, and he was involved in the scuffle (or so it seems based on our information). But no guarantee he wasn't critically injured early in the fight, or that he had a chance to get at the controls.

If someone jumped on someone at the controls and forced them forward, they would push against the control yoke, which would put the airplane into a dive. Seems to me, if you're attacking from behind, which would be the case in this scenario, this could easily happen.

Also, what are the chances pieces of the plane would start coming off on the way down, and end up eight miles away?

There is a speed called "Vne" for every airplane, which is short for "Never exceed this airspeed". If you go above that airspeed you can damage the controls and, yes, pieces can start falling off the airplane. The easiest way to achieve Vne or greater is to put the airplane into a steep dive with the engines still running. If they did exceed Vne then yes, there is a significant chance pieces of the airplane could start coming off. Doesn't mean HUGE CHUNKS are flying off - maybe just things like the control surfaces and antennaes or the occassional hunk of aluminum skin. The bulk of the plane would still lawn-dart into the ground, but yes, bits could end up a considerable distance away.

Remember that flight 587 lost it's vertical stabilizer and rudder during take-off, and there was no fight going on in the cockpit and it wasn't in a dive. Excessive stress can cause major damage to an airframe. Certainly, with a fight in the cockpit and bizarre course changes flight 93 could have been subjected to unusual and extreme stress, resulting in broken bits falling off prior to the final crash.

Originally posted by vibrotronica
I don't believe it was shot down, either. I don't think the Air Force had enough time to get an armed plane into position to do the job.

They didn't. Even post-9/11 the airforce has sometimes found it difficult to perform timely intercepts. Gotta remember, jetliners are fast. Truth is, it can be difficult to quickly intercept even a smaller, slower airplane.

But is there any consensus on exactly how the passengers brought the plane down? Did they just burst into the cockpit, fight with the hijackers, and point the stick toward the ground?

I think it's more likely no one was flying during the fight and the controls got knocked around by accident - but that's my opinion. It could be the hijackers delibrately crashed to prevent the passengers from taking the airplane away from them. The exact circumstances will never be known since there are no surviving witnesses.

Did they blow the door and depressurize the cabin? It seems like that would have been easier.

First of all, there's no way to "blow the door" from inside the cabin. Second, depressurization, contrary to Hollywood depictions, is not instantly or inherently fatal. It will not, in and of itself, cause an airplane to go into a fatal dive. In fact, during the Payne Stewart/Learjet accident the airplane continued flying quite nicely for several hours after depresurizing and, presumably, all aboard were dead. It crashed only after it ran out of gas.

Originally posted by monty
Depending on how many passengers knew how to fly the aircraft. There's bound to be more than just "grab the wheel and aim" to keeping a rather large aircraft level and pointed in a particular direction. Of course, there's also the issue of landing the thing. A jumbo jet in the air is not someone's compact auto on the highway.

As I mentioned before, at least one passenger was also a pilot, although I'm not sure he had any training on the big jets. "Grab the wheel and aim" might work if you're in level cruise (essentially, that's what the hijackers did and it worked 3 times out of 4) but pulling out of a dangerously fast and steep dive is another matter. It is possible to reach a point of no return in a dive and simply not have the altitutude left in which to recover level flight without pulling back so hard you start snapping bits off the airplane. Did it reach that point? I have no idea. I don't think anyone does.

Landing is the other issue. Although many people who are non-pilots have successfully landed SMALL, piston-powered airplanes I've yet to hear of any untrained person managing this in a big jet. In the movie Executive Decision Kurt Russell portrays a student pilot who lands a big jet, but Mr. Russell - who is a private pilot of some experience - tried landing a big jet on a simulator and just couldn't do it successfully. In other words, it's extremely unlikely that someone - even a pilot - untrained in landing a big jet would be able to do so. On the other hand, if a person DID find themselves in such a situation they would be highly motivated to beat the odds. Certainly, any possible assistance would be given to them in order to land, since it is inevitable that once an airplane takes off it will come down again.

Originally posted by ataraxy22
That plane was going to be coming down short of DC one way or another...if the passengers hadn't taken care of it, the Air Force would have.

Given how soon the Air Force managed to show up after the crash... probably. I'd like to think so.

[Zagadka]

... and if the government DID do it, would it matter? I would expect no less. The passengers on the plane certainly didn't. The lives of the passengers on the plane are frankly beans compared to the potential targets they were going for.

[Ferret Herder]

Originally posted by Kilt-wearin' man
You mean more public than having sections of recorded cell phone calls played on CNN and other news outlets? The FAA never releases cockpit voice recordings (transcripts yes, actual voice recordings no), but other recordings from this incident have been broadcast on the evening news. How much more "released" do they need to be?

And as stated earlier, the cockpit voice recordings were played some time last year for the families of the passengers of that plane. This was reported on heavily on the news, and I saw an interview with a couple of the family members afterwards. The FAA decided to do this in light of the unusual situation, to help comfort them and hopefully help answer questions they may have had.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally posted by shelbo
...evidence that, in fact F-16s arrived after the crash, it seems a little silly to believe that the government shot it down, and is now covering up that fact.

So what if the Air Force showed up after the crash? Some missiles have a beyond visual range capability. The AIM-54 Phoenix Missile can engage targets over 100 miles from the attacking aircraft. Given that the missile itself moves at over 3,000 m.p.h. it could easily arrive several minutes before the attacking craft. Especially if the attacking craft knew it got a hit and didn't feel the need to haull-ass on afterburner all the way in to the final crash site. The Phoenix, IIRC, was made to engage long-range bombers so attacking a jumbo jet is righ up its alley. The missile also attacks from above (that is it flies high and then drops down on its target) so it is doubtful that observers on the ground would even see it or hear it (I think its fall on target is unpowered...no more rocket pushing it so little noise and no visible glow).

Personally I think the plane just crashed and as others have mentioned I also would support the government for shooting it down given the circumstances (although you might think they'd give at least one warning to the terrorists to land the plane before shooting...they had some time for that it would seem). Nevertheless I don't find evidence that fighters showed-up several minutes afetr the crash as necessarily compelling evidence in and of itself that Flight-93 wasn't shot down.

[Johnny L.A.]

And as stated earlier, the cockpit voice recordings were played some time last year for the families of the passengers of that plane. This was reported on heavily on the news, and I saw an interview with a couple of the family members afterwards. The FAA decided to do this in light of the unusual situation, to help comfort them and hopefully help answer questions they may have had.

Yes, the families were allowed to listen to the recordings. But I don't remember the recordings ever being released except in the usual transcript form. (Some other countries have and do release the audio for their aircraft.)

[Rick]

I fly lots (as a passenger IANAP) and often the door to the flight deck is open when passengers are boarding. Based on my observations, I can tell you this without fear of being contradicted. The guys that designed large airplanes did not waste any excess space on the pilots. Flight decks are tight. I doubt that there is room for more than one person to attack a set of hijackers at a time.
Now let me take a couple of guesses here.
I can very easily see where a plane could go out of control when trying to overcome a couple of bad guys at the controls. If the plane were to go into a dive everyone not belted in would be thrown forward, hard. Do you think you could pull the plane out of a dive, with two unconscious bad guys laying on the controls, and ten other people laying on your back? I don't even think Seve Canyon could pull that one off.

However, I seem to recall that flight 93 made a roll before the dive. So try this senario on. Good guys make it to the flight deck. Good guy #1 hits first bad guy on head with, oh say, a wine bottle (heavy, and available). Bad guy #2 turns to see what is going on. And not being highly trained he turns the control wheel at the same time. (much like an inexperienced driver has a tendency to turn the steering wheel when looking over their shoulder before making a lane change). On an airplane turning the control wheel causes the plane to bank. And continues to bank until plane is upside down. Everyone not belted in gets thrown around. At this point one of several things happens, but bottom line is the control stick gets pulled back which normally would cause the plane to climb, but because the plane is upside down, causes the fatal dive.

IMHO anyone who thinks that flight 93 was shot down probably also think that OJ was framed.

[threemae]

Whack, just out of curiosity, how the hell do you target that thing?

I mean, there must have still been dozens of airplanes similar to the 757 that crashed in PA in the air within a couple dozen miles of that aircraft. How would you pick off the right one?

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally posted by threemae
Whack, just out of curiosity, how the hell do you target that thing?

I'm not a fighter pilot or any kind of pilot for that matter but I do know that the planes carrying those missiles can track and engage multiple targets at one time. I'm sure with training and what not pilots know how to pick out the target they want (and not just even from their own systems...ground and airborn systems can relay tracking and targeting information to the fighter). In all I'm sure it can be done if they want to...it's not as if the all the planes in the sky are flying in tight formation that they can't be distinguished.

I go with Rick's hypothesis. These guys were not experienced pilots by any stretch and could have easily done something stupid as regards keeping the plane flying. That or they intentionally threw the plane into some wild jinks to try and throw their attackers off them and lost control (again all to easy for these neophyte pilots).

Or, possibly, the hijackers upon realizing they were going to lose control of the plane intentionally screwed it up to at least cause the plane to crash. Just turning off (or throttling back) the engines might have been sufficient...stall then nose dive to the ground. In the good old days of terrorism just crashing a plane was plenty so why not? Who would guess that we'd ever be grateful that he plane actually did crash but only into an empty field?

It would seem the cockpit recorder would have some answers. Isn't there a data recorder too that tells what the planes status was? Was that ever found? That would shed some light on what the plane controls were doing.

[Revtim]

I thought about this while I was flying over the holidays. The thing that I wonder about a bit is how the passengers would have come to the decision to storm the hijackers. Would cell phone calls from people watching CNN be enough for me to be sure that we were on a suicide path like the other flights? Sure enough to risk the lives of every passenger on the plan? I guess it was for them, and they were almost certainly correct, but I know I would be wondering if I was taking an unnecessary risk with the other passengers' lives by storming the cabin.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally posted by Revtim
I thought about this while I was flying over the holidays. The thing that I wonder about a bit is how the passengers would have come to the decision to storm the hijackers. Would cell phone calls from people watching CNN be enough for me to be sure that we were on a suicide path like the other flights?

Are you kidding? Remember what had happened so far and consider yourself receiving the following info:

REVTIM: Operator...we've been hijacked!

OPERATOR: Oh no! In the last two hours three hijacked planes have struck both World Trade Centers in New York and one crashed into the Pentagon!

REVTIM: You think these guys want to do the same thing or do you suppose they just want a flight to Cuba and some guy out of jail?

Seriously...what would be the chances that some completely unrelated hijack happened simultaneously with three otehr coordinated ones? Even if you had your doubts could you afford to NOT take action? You risk your life now and maybe live and maybe save untold hundreds of people on the ground or you wait and die for certain after hitting a building or you just hope these are some other guys with no connection to the three earlier attacks?

Me...I'd go for the terrorists in that situation. The math is easy. I'd be scared to death but I'd have to try (of course I might just be paralyzed with fear...no way of knowing till actually faced with such a situation but the logical side of my head would say 'go get them').

Frankly, I doubt terrorists will find much luck in capturing American laden airliners in the near to semi-distant future. The passengers will almost certainly attack them on the spot. Happened with that nut on the flight from California to Chicago who rushed the cockpit. By all accounts several passengers were on his heels almost as soon as the crazy guy made his move.

[Broomstick]

Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole
So what if the Air Force showed up after the crash? Some missiles have a beyond visual range capability

Were the pursuit aircraft armed?

Important question. At least two of the intercept pilots that day were trainees with no live munitions on board. In which case the only way to stop an airliner would be to ram it. Basically, the guys were asked to go on a suicide mission. And they did - but did not reach the intended target in time. I recall seeing an interview with these two pilots on TV, don't recall if they were the pursuit for Flight 93 or not.

Originally posted by Rick
Now let me take a couple of guesses here.
I can very easily see where a plane could go out of control when trying to overcome a couple of bad guys at the controls. If the plane were to go into a dive everyone not belted in would be thrown forward, hard.

Good guess, but not necessarially. Dive abruptly enough and you could wind up in a zero-g condition for a few seconds, with folks and objects floating about randomly, or even negative g's, with everyone slamming into the ceiling of the airplane or rolling up into the tail. In any case - would make moving about and conducting any sort of attack extremely difficult.

Do you think you could pull the plane out of a dive, with two unconscious bad guys laying on the controls, and ten other people laying on your back?

No! Don't think I could do it even without the folks on my back! Once you start a dive towards the ground things start moving very fast. You need two things to fix a dive: time and altitude. You have to have enough of both of them.

Originally posted by Rick
And not being highly trained he turns the control wheel at the same time. (much like an inexperienced driver has a tendency to turn the steering wheel when looking over their shoulder before making a lane change).

Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole
These guys were not experienced pilots by any stretch and could have easily done something stupid as regards keeping the plane flying. That or they intentionally threw the plane into some wild jinks to try and throw their attackers off them and lost control (again all to easy for these neophyte pilots).

Hey, hold on a minute here.

No, these guys weren't airline pilots - but they were pilots. Some of them, apparently, weren't very good pilots but at least a couple of them WERE quite competant given their training and number of hours in the air. They were NOT amateurs - Mohammad Atta had a commercial pilot's license, for example, and could have had a career as a professional pilot if he hadn't turned to martyrdom. Don't make the mistake of assuming these were poorly trained incompetants at the controls because they weren't. At least, not all of them were. Granted, Atta was not on Flight 93 but there's no reason to think the guys at the controls of that flight were any less competant than he was. In normal cruise - which is when the hijackings occurred - I would think maintaining control of an airliner and holding it on course is well within the capability of most pilots, even those less experienced than the hijackers. For starters, the yokes/sticks and rudders all work the same way from the pilot's viewpoint and those are the basic controls of any airplane. We also know these guys studied the systems of these airplanes - in other words, they knew where all the controls were and how they worked. It's take-offs, landings, and emergency procedures that are the difficult parts, not sitting in cruise flight

There is one aspect of flying an airplane that non-pilots typically don't know - and that's you don't need your hands on the controls 100% of the time. Or even 50% of the time in good weather, and September 11, 2001 was an exceptionally fine day for flying. Most pilots of my acquaintance, if they feel a need to turn their heads and look behind them, tend to let go of the yoke to prevent just that. These guys had studied that variety of airliner - they might well have set the autopilot to fly a course. It would just as likely in my mind that the hijackers, with autopilot set, could turn and meet the charging passengers as they could have inadvertently started an uncontrolled roll leading to a crash.

[Revtim]

Whack-a-Mole, I agree that that's the most logical assumption in that situation. I'm just saying it still might be tought to risk a plan load of lives, if there's even the tiniest possibility of a non-suicide hijack.

[handsomeharry]

While i think that the AF didn't shoot the plane down, i just love conspiracy theories, so i would have no problem with it. however, i can think of one reason why the AF WOULD deny it. just thinking of the number of lawsuits would be enough to clamp the ol' lid on it pronto! if one doubts that there would be lawsuits, just remember the one filed by that one jewel who sued the builder of the WTC (or the architect) for making a building that couldn't resist the pressure of an airliner crashing into it...

on another point, couldn't an unarmed f-16 do something by positioning itself in front of an airliner which could foul up the engine or the air currents (i'm talking WAYYYYYYYYYYY above myself on the physics of the thing)? or, have i just been watching too much clutch cargo or fireball xl-5???

[Kilt-wearin' man]

Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole
So what if the Air Force showed up after the crash? Some missiles have a beyond visual range capability. The AIM-54 Phoenix Missile can engage targets over 100 miles from the attacking aircraft. Given that the missile itself moves at over 3,000 m.p.h. it could easily arrive several minutes before the attacking craft. Especially if the attacking craft knew it got a hit and didn't feel the need to haull-ass on afterburner all the way in to the final crash site. The Phoenix, IIRC, was made to engage long-range bombers so attacking a jumbo jet is righ up its alley. The missile also attacks from above (that is it flies high and then drops down on its target) so it is doubtful that observers on the ground would even see it or hear it (I think its fall on target is unpowered...no more rocket pushing it so little noise and no visible glow).

Personally I think the plane just crashed and as others have mentioned I also would support the government for shooting it down given the circumstances (although you might think they'd give at least one warning to the terrorists to land the plane before shooting...they had some time for that it would seem). Nevertheless I don't find evidence that fighters showed-up several minutes afetr the crash as necessarily compelling evidence in and of itself that Flight-93 wasn't shot down.

The only aircraft in the world that is equipped to fire the AIM-54 Phoenix is the Navy's F-14 Tomcat. The longest range missile the F-16 can carry is the AIM-120 AMRAAM (that's an acronym for Advanced Medium Range Air to Air Missile), and its range is a little over 20 miles, a distance an aircraft moving at 600 mph would cover in 20 seconds. Definitely not a BVR weapon, and not one that could be fired while the attacking aircraft was several minutes away from the impact point. Cite.

Let's not give the conspiracy folks more straws to grasp at, hmmm?

[Kilt-wearin' man]

Um...that is to say, it couldn't be fired at a target that far away unless the attacker and the target are closing, which the F-16's and the airliner were not.

[Khadaji]

LOL. You bet! AND we never landed on the moon!

[carnivorousplant]

Originally posted by Kilt-wearin' man
unless the attacker and the target are closing, which the F-16's and the airliner were not.

If the F-16 is on afterburner it is much faster than an airliner, is it not?

If a missile hits the airliner, will it have an engine blown of and come don it one piece, or loose a wing and come down it many pieces?

Which airliners are equipped to be landed by auto pilot or remote control?

Thanks.

[Zagadka]

Missiles typically explode in proximity and cause damage over a wider area of the plane, but a missile strike on a large pressurized aircraft would probably cause a breakup, not a full body.

When the Vicennes shot down Iran Air 655 (mistaking it for an Iranian F-14, in all irony). A quote from a description of the accident from the Washington Post:

The Standard missiles homed in on the heat of the quarry's engines and at least one of them exploded when it pulled abreast of the Airbus. Such a missile hit usually slices an aircraft apart and turns it into a fireball of burning fuel.

[Johnny L.A.]

Which airliners are equipped to be landed by auto pilot or remote control?

Many airliners are capable of being landed by autopilot, but I don't have a list. The thing is, that the pilot has to "program" the autopilot to do it -- which he can't do if he's dead. Airliners are not equipped to fly by remote control for obvious reasons.

Following up on what [b]Broomstick[/b[ said earlier, it is possible to recover an aircraft from an unusual attitude (e.g, pointed toward the ground) if it has not already exceeded V_ne and parts have not started coming off, and if you have the altitude and time to do it, and if the pilot (or de facto pilot) knows what he or she is doing. There is a sequence of maneuvers that need to be done in order, and it does take altitude. Broomstick or one of the other fixed-wing pilots can give you the correct answer, but IIRC this is how it goes: Reduce the throttle to idle. Level the wings. Gently and gradually pull the nose up to the horizon. If you're in a dive and you just pull back on the yoke, you're liable to snap the wings off.

[El Zagna]

Kunilou’s correct. The military has admitted that it had a couple of fighters on the way to intercept the 747. Unfortunately the two fighters that had the best chance of reaching it were on a training mission and unarmed. The military made it clear that their intention was to shoot the hijacked plane down or otherwise take it out of the air. They were unapologetic about their intentions. If they had pulled it off they would have been heroes.

Originally posted by bdgr If the government shot it down, they sure wouldnt tell us.

Why wouldn't they tell us? Let's do a little critical thinking here. What is the advantage to the government of trying to pull off such a lie? What are the chances of actually getting away with the lie? Compare that to the downside of getting caught in the lie. There’s just no benefit to it.

[Robot Arm]

Originally posted by Kilt-wearin' man
...and its range is a little over 20 miles, a distance an aircraft moving at 600 mph would cover in 20 seconds.

600 miles per hour is equivalent to 10 miles per minute. 20 miles will take 2 minutes.