So now you want to add a jet fighter (or two) to the mix of lethal stuff falling all over Virginia? You guys are freakin’ brutal. :eek:
mangeorge
Yeah, I suppose we wandered a bit off topic, but folks asked questions and I can’t see where trying to answer hurt anything. It would be just as annoying to start a new thread every time the topic changed just slightly, too.
Well, here’s the OP’s basic question, and a pretty good one it is. He/she really like’s commas, though. Not bad for a newby;
.
Most replies seem pretty much on topic to me.
If I were to start a new topic, it would concern why you’re all so willing to knock a bunch of civilians to save a few politicians. Most of whom would run for the basemant and be safe anyway.
All except the Marines. They gotta guard the place.
Off-topic, eh. 
mangeorge
I never said I’d trade a couple hundred civilians for Congress, that was someone else.
When folks talk about shooting down a hijacked plane they seldom consider where the pieces will fall. And fall they will. What goes up must come down. Having an airliner crash in your backyard is a really bad thing - just ask the folks in Rockaway who got to play catch with Flight 587 (the Airbus that lost it’s vertical stabilizer and rudder). Or the folks in the path of that Concorde that crashed. Or the folks in Lockerbie, Scotland. Or the recipients of various other fractured aircraft.
When Payne Stewar’s Learjet had its little presurization problem they let the darn thing just fly on its own for a couple hours. One reason was to give those aboard every possible (even ridiculously remote) chance to do something about the flight. Another reason was that no one was comfortable with the idea of shooting down an unarmed civilian airplane. And another reason was if you shoot it down, it falls on something. Don’t want to shoot it down over buildings if you can help it, and when it started to run out of fuel it was over farm country, so in that case the damage on the ground was minimal.
Likewise, with the small stolen planes (Frankfurt, Tampa) you’ve got the dual problems of 1) most aircraft aren’t equipped with weapons to shoot someone down anyhow (think in Frankfurt they did call in fighter jets) and in a 2) over a city, you got a choice between a nut crashing into a building, or you can shoot him down, and he will then crash into a building. That’s a choice?
If the fighters HAD reached Flight 93 they would have had very little time in which to take down that plane before it was over heavily inhabited territory where any crash would result in death on the ground.
I tend to think (and it’s strictly opinion here) that if the hijackers had been in control they would NOT have suicided until they were over buildings and could do some killing on the ground, too. Which is why I think it was an accidental crash arising from a cockpit fight for control of the aircraft.
Of course, other folks think different.
That was me, and I didn’t say I or anyone else here would be so willing to knock off a bunch of civilians to save the politicians. I said the military would.
The military’s duty is national defense. By definition, the most important part of the nation is the government. Even if the more important politicians got out of DC before this point, even the deaths of a number of senior bureaucrats and the destruction of a major government building would have long-lasting effects. Assuming it was a symbollic attack, it would be targetted probably at the White House. Not so much of a real loss tactically, but the effect on moral of the nation would be horrendous. But I think these guys were, unfortunately, smarter than that. Taking out Congress probably wouldn’t have costed so many lives (evacuation), but the offices contain their records etc, the destruction of which would cause a legal jam for years. Or taking out the Treasury. Or FBI HQ. There are a number of targets, many of which weren’t evacuated, and any of which would have hurt our government system and response time to the attacks a lot - not to mention their stated effect on moral.
To a civilian, the death of, say, 400 civilians would normally be horrible… but remember the jet that crashed into a neighborhood a month after? It wasn’t totally devastating. In the light of the other deaths of the day, the civilians on the ground would be tragic, but still a drop in the relative bucket. The military wouldn’t hesitate to give the order.
Off that topic, someone at the top of this page mentioned something about the towers not resisting the blow from the airliner. The problem was that the towers WERE built to resist an airliner impact - that of a 707 or 727, IIRC, the standard airliner at the time. The plane that crashed into the towers was larger and carried more fuel. Frankly, they did their job admirably by standing up long enough for most of the people in them to evacuate -and to collapse straight down.
… I used “costed”… I’m sorry… breaks down into tears
As for “trading a couple hundred civilians to save Congress”:
Uh…those civilians weren’t going to survive if we let the plane fly into the Capitol or the White House. They were doomed either way, which some on board seemed to realize, thus their actions.
The point wasn’t the people on the plane, the point was the people on the ground. Someone brought up that shooting down the plane too close would cause it to crash in a suburban/urban area, causing more deaths… but the military wouldn’t blink (my point and theirs).
Somebody called all those dead people “beans”.
The hijackers on that day had proven themselves to be very good at selecting targets that caused the maximum toll in human lives and psychological shock. It is an extremely safe bet that anywhere that the plane would have been brought down at random would have been better that wherever the hijackers had planned to crash it.
Slightly off the current path, but has the 911 telephone call from one of the passengers been explained? He was the one locked in the bathroom who mentioned to the 911 dispatcher of hearing a loud explosion and seeing white smoke:
"Minutes later, news broke of another crash, this time around 80 miles south-east of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. At 9.58am, an emergency dispatcher had answered a telephone call from a man who said he was a passenger locked in a bathroom on United Airlines flight 93. “We are being hijacked, we are being hijacked,” he told the dispatcher, while repeatedly insisting that the call was not a hoax. The plane was “going down”, he said. He had heard some sort of explosion and said there was white smoke coming from the aircraft. Then the dispatcher lost him. "
Aside from the fact that there is absolutely no evidence of a shoot-down, there are plenty of logical holes in the theory.
For one thing, since the government categorically denied it before the wreckage was analyzed, they had to know beforehand that there would be no evidence of the shootdown that was obvious to all observers.
But more importantly, why would they lie? They voluntarily admitted that they were GOING to shoot it down. Why didn’t they cover that up and say they would never shoot down civilians? It seems to me that we have plenty of reasons to believe that the government is being reasonably honest about what happened to that flight, perhaps with a few details left out for security reasons or to protect the feelings of the family from gruesome details.
Not according to this article. It just seems very unlikely that books, clothing and even possibly human remains, floated with the wind over six miles:
There is this phenomena called “bounce”, you see.
To my mind, it’s entirely conceivable that when the plane hit some of the debris bounced back up into the air. Given the forces involved, some debris could have been flung a considerable distance back up into the sky. The shockwave traveling away from the site, and the rising air from burning fuel, could also help send debris flying.
Also, when they say “human remains” they’re probably NOT talking about entire arms and legs but much much smaller pieces. The smaller the piece, the further it can go.
But the biggest argument in my mind against a shoot-down is there no reason for the government to deny this, if it actually occured. The necessity of it would have been painfully obvious. Instead, they military admits it couldn’t get to the scene in time - wow, THAT makes them look good. :rolleyes:
Why not?
I don’t believe that the aircraft was shot down, nor do I believe in Area 51’s hanger 18, but I don’t believe that the Government always tells the truth, particularly in time of war, or what it believes to be war. Why didn’t they tell us how difficult Operation Anaconda was?
I don’ t believe that “Why would they” proves they didn’t any more than “Why wouldn’t they” proves that they did. It seems to me using that as an argument is scraping the bottom of the barrel and makes the very convincing argument that goes before less convincing.
The question of why the government would lie has been asked a couple of times on this tread, but no one has yet to offer a reason why doing so woule be in their best interest. So I’ll ask again, carnivorousplant what would be their motive for lying. What possible benefit could they possibly derive from lying that would outweigh the liabilities of either not lying or getting caught in the lie.
I disagree with your claim that the “why would they” argument is some sort of logical fallacy. The question of motive is well established in criminal cases, and that’s essentially what we have here. It also seems to me that the burdon of proof lies with those who are making such an outrageous claim.
Perhaps I expresed myself poorly.
I think the questions “why” and “why not” are speculative rather than factual and thus unanswerable.
Thanks,
CP
If I have no motive for killing someone, I’m not going to do it. If I receive no benefit from telling a lie I’m not going to tell it. There is a significant downside to getting caught for either act. To me that isn’t speculation. It is a very reasonable and logical thought process.
If someone is going to accuse the government of lying about shooting down a plane, then they must suggest a benefit that the government would derive from doing so. If there is no benefit, then their claim simply doesn’t hold up. That’s just good reasoning. No?
Not to belabor the point, but only the F-14 can carry those puppies, and they are very, very expensive. In fact, once the F-14 is gone, so are the Phoenix missles. AMRAM’s are the name of the game now. I imagine finding a fueled and ready F-14 and a warshot Phoenix would have taken too long. No evidence any were even remotely close to the area.
Also, I throw my support behind the posters who pointed out that (a) The Air Force and DoD admitted they would have shot the Jet down if it did not comply with orders (b) F-16’s got there, but a bit late, © the passengers were sadly without real hope other then self help, and they knew it.
Additional points-
recent news articles have pointed out the Bush administration now believes they were going after the White House after all. This was based on interviews with detainees as I recall.
Bodies of the passengers and terrorists impacting (from the rush into the narrow cockpit) into the control yoke would push it down, wouldn’t it? Then the dive and extra gravity would place more weight on the yoke pressing it down further- right? Wouldn’t take much to cause a serious unrecoverable dive.
IMHO: If there was going to be a coverup it would have been regarding all the hints and information the FBI, CIA and NSA missed regarding 9/11 prior it happening right? That information, while very, very embarassing did come out.
Had the passengers killed the terrorists, taken control of the plane, and returned it to level flight, what are the chances they would have been allowed to land? They would all be on their cell phones saying “Yay”, but could they convince the military, and would the military react quickly enough? Would the brass launch a SAM to bring down the F-16 sent after the passenger jet? Just one pilot. Beans.
Sorry, Mr. Pollyanna here wants a happy ending. I want Spielberg to make the movie.
Peace,
mangeorge