Why was the order to shoot the planes down so wrong on 9/11?

[BushHasGotToGo]

The people were going to die anyways. By shooting the planes down lives would have been saved. I still believe that the passengers caused a lot of commotion that the terrorists were distracted and they crashed. However, if they approached Washington, they should have been shot down.

[DarkPhenyx]

1. It wasn't wrong.

It was a very good and sound order IMHO.

[arcane1]

2. IIRC, they were all set to shoot down Payne Stewart's plane

if necessary...

I don't see anything wrong with that at all... for awhile there I believed that is exactly what happened over PA...

[wuushew]

3. Because at the time they were not know to be anything other than hijacking

Remember up to any point prior to crashing, a plane maybe able to regain control from a hijacker.

By issuing a order to shoot down a plane you guarantee the deaths of everyone aboard.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

5. DO you work for Condi Rice?

"we never imagined planes would be flown into buildings" Rice? Man, you buy that BS?

[wuushew]

6. Of course the concept is possible!

The intent was not widely known/covered up


Hell a B-25 crashed into the Empire State building in 1945, that is proof of concept enough.

[DUreader]

9. POSSIBLE? WTF? WARNINGS ALL SUMMER LONG! AA MISSILES AT G8!!

Bush* himself was threatened in july by suicide airplanes.

Why do you think asscraft stopped flying?

[wuushew]

10. Its pure math

By shooting down an airplane there is a 100% chance of killing 500 people, by taking the risk of not shooting the same airplane the chance of subduing the hijacker may outweigh the additional risks of deaths on the ground.

100% chance of shooting plane = 500 deaths
80% chance of successful hijacking + 100 ground deaths = 500 deaths

Break even analysis

when and where to shootdown the plane depend on the size of the aircraft and how heavily the area over which it is flying is.

[DoYouEverWonder]

12. Because 3 planes had already

been flown into buildings that morning by the time the 4th plane 'crashed'.

However, I doubt if the BCF wanted to deal with the potential lawsuits, no matter how good a reason they would have had for shotting down a passenger plane. Better not to admit to anything and easy to get away with, when everything you do is a secret.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[izzie]

7. Did that order go out?

n/t

[karlschneider]

8. If it did, it sure escaped MY notice.............????

:eyes:

[BushHasGotToGo]

19. Cheney told Bush to put the order out

He admitted it a day later.

[Abe Linkman]

11. Terrorists angle still very much in doubt

And, the very fact the Government won't cooperate in a full investigation bolsters the idea that the only "terrorists" on 9/11 were not from a cave or Saudi Arabia. Israel maybe. U.S., maybe.

[davekriss]

13. You might enjoy this thread

www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=40947

It gets into Flight 93 around page 2.

[VolcanoJen]

14. Buried deep, deep, deep into the Joint 9-11 Report...

... is a revelation that the cockpit voice recorder shows the hijackers crashed the plane.

Just as a related breaking news story, I thought I'd post this link to the LBN discussion for those interested:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=56114&mesg_id=56114

[pretzel4gore]

16. the only ones capable of arranging 911

were also the only ones who could possibly benefit from it....the 'joint 911 report' is bushit..... carefully made up by the secret service....paid for by taxpayers, for the nazis

[amazona]

15. who said it was wrong?

Flight 93 was 10-15 minutes away from Three Mile Island. It broke up in the air, so I am satisfied that it was shot down. An airline attendant spilling hot coffee on a hijacker can't make a plane break up in the air, right? If the passengers had brought down the plane, it would have broken up when it hit the ground.

Be that as it may, tragic as the loss of 44 lives was, and it was indeed tragic, the horrendous loss of life and property that would have resulted had Flight 93 flown into Three Mile Island would likely have been much greater.

[wuushew]

17. nuke plants are tough

KROFT: (Voiceover) There's another big difference according to several
engineers we talked to. The World Trade Center was made of relatively light
steel and glass and the plane was able to penetrate deep into the building. The
damage was caused by its fuel exploding and fire that raised the temperature
above the 1,500 degrees it takes to melt steel. Hijackers could not expect to
get that kind of penetration into a containment building with walls up to six
feet thick of concrete and steel rebar reinforced with steel lining of up to
four inches.

(Footage of nuclear plant impact test; Beedle)

KROFT: (Voiceover) To give you some idea of a reactor's durability, back in
1989 the United States and Japan asked Sandia National Labs to find out what
would happen if a pilot flew a jet directly into a nuclear plant's containment
building. So they sent a rocket-propelled F-4 fighter down a track towards a
mock containment wall at 480 miles an hour. The fighter plane disintegrated
into dust. The deepest point of penetration, just 2.4 inches. Although a
commercial jumbo jet is much bigger and heavier, Ralph Beedle believes the
result would be the same.

http://www.nci.org/01nci/10/1014-60min-transcript.htm

[Mechatanketra]

21. Reminds me of a Jerry Pournelle comment

He was once asked by another writer how a hypothetical terrorist/villain group in a story might go about causing a nuclear explosion in a reactor. His answer: "Sneak in an A-bomb."

[Noordam]

18. "Do the Math"

there is a good flash on this and question why it took so long for the planes to get into the air much less shoot anything.

[paulthompson]

20. For more info on Flight 93

(I posted this on another thread, but I think it's equally relevant here)

Especially towards the end:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/flight93.html

I put that together, and it's my guess that the military shot the plane down. Why cover that up? Because there should have been plenty of time to realize the passengers were formulating a plan to take over the plane. There were at least 21 minutes between when a passenger first said over a phone that the passengers were formulating a plan to take over the plane and when the plane crashed. And that was on a phone already being closely monitored by many gvmt agencies, including the FBI.

There has never been any evidence whatsoever that Three Mile Island was a target. There are nuclear power plants all over the US, it's just that that one is well known. In fact, the hijacked Flight 11 literally passed directly over one in the Hudson River Valley. If the hijackers were simply looking for the most deaths, the one in New York State would have been the one to hit. It's estimated that would have caused about 20 million deaths, and it is the one target in the US that could cause the greatest number of casualities. But as 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed later said in his one public interview, they considered nuclear plants early on, but ruled them out because they thought they would have an overall negative propaganda effect.

Anyways, if you were in a position to order a shootdown or not that morning and didn't know that, one still could have safely waited at least another five minutes before Three Mile Island drew near, if indeed the plane headed in that direction at all (when it crashed it actually was headed south and away from there). Standard procedure says one should do a fly by first, have a military fighter establish eye contact with the pilot and see who's flying the plane, then tip the fighter's wings in warning and so on. None of that was done. If the plane was shot down, it was shot down from a distance in violation of all standard procedures.

---

Regarding the one posting up above claiming that flying an aircraft into a nuclear plant would have no effect, if you believe that I have a bridge to sell you. They wouldn't have no fly zones about nuke plants (as they do, even before 9/11) if a plane could only make a mark of a couple of inches into one. Of course they're going to make claims like that. What would you expect them to say - here's a target that could kill millions if hit and we have no good way to defend against it?

[RH]

23. closely monitored?

On a phone already being closely monitored by many gvmt agencies, including the FBI?

According to what, please, was that the case?

[zonmoy]

22. perhaps

they didnt shoot the planes down because bushes puppetmasters ordered him to make sure the attack was carried out. what better way to make us into a fascist state.

[Sterling]

24. What order?

There was no such order, was there? The lack of such an order is the issue, don't you think?