9/11 investigators: Air defense ill-prepared

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » June 17, 2004, 12:53 pm

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/ ... index.html

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Aviation and military officials were "unsuited in every respect for what was about to happen" on September 11, the federal panel reviewing the attacks heard Thursday."

Interesting, I wonder what the course of action would of been if we were prepared. Shoot the planes down over populated areas?

XunilTlatoani · Post by **XunilTlatoani** » June 17, 2004, 1:04 pm

Shortly after 9/11, a crazy guy on a plane headed into O'Hare in Chicago ran up to the cockpit and started banging on the door. Most people in the Chicago metro area knew about this first-hand because of the deafening sonic boom of the fighter jets that scrambled to escort the plane down.

If a similar system was in place on 9/11, there would have been fighters escorting that jet and a procedure to follow. Yes, that procedure may have included shooting the plane down but considering the alternative...

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » June 17, 2004, 1:06 pm

The only real defense there was were in the airports and in the plane. Once those planes took off shit hit the fan. It might be a different situiation for the planes heading to D.C. where they would have most likely shot them down.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » June 17, 2004, 1:10 pm

Sionistic wrote:The only real defense there was were in the airports and in the plane. Once those planes took off shit hit the fan. It might be a different situiation for the planes heading to D.C. where they would have most likely shot them down.

I'd think planes leaving their allowed flight paths and flying over NYC which is a no-fly zone if I recall correctly would set off a few warning lights in someones head.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » June 17, 2004, 1:12 pm

Dregor Thule wrote:
Sionistic wrote:The only real defense there was were in the airports and in the plane. Once those planes took off shit hit the fan. It might be a different situiation for the planes heading to D.C. where they would have most likely shot them down.
I'd think planes leaving their allowed flight paths and flying over NYC which is a no-fly zone if I recall correctly would set off a few warning lights in someones head.

Yes they would and they did. The NYC planes were flying over highly populated areas. What would you do? Shoot them down?

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » June 17, 2004, 1:13 pm

Yep. Did you see what happened?

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » June 17, 2004, 1:16 pm

No one would even imagine they were going to do that. So they did not want to shoot them down because they were only worried about the people below. Maybe they could of shot the second one down but comunications were a mess after the first crash.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » June 17, 2004, 1:42 pm

Prior to 9/11, flight crews were trained to comply with hijackers, because they usually just wanted to get somewhere we wouldn't let them. The concept of them using jets as flying bombs apparently hadn't occurred to anyone except Osama.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » June 17, 2004, 1:44 pm

Anyone who thinks that the US blew it by not shooting them down is a fool, there was no reasonable expectation of this occuring therefore nothing had been planned, admittedly the contingency could have been thought of, but before 911, there is not a single human being I ever heard say, "Gee maybe we should put up a plan to shootdown civilian airliners that dare to stray from course, just in case they are a flying bomb"

If we had shot them down that morning, by the end of the day there would have been millions of people screaming about the US brutally murdering those passengers, and for years there would have been attacks on Bush for letting them be shot down. Carpet knives and such would have been laughed off as a week government coverup. Ignorant fucks on this forum would be screaming and calling the pilots babykillers.

DEAL WITH REALITY.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » June 17, 2004, 1:57 pm

Ever read Tom Clancy, Debt of Honor?

Even knowing a plane may be actually a flying bomb, removing all doubt from the equation, having vigilent air defense capable of knocking out a jetliner only seconds/minutes from established flight routes (these suckers travel fast... remember? That's why we don't drive from coast-to-coast for business.) is an improbability. MAYBE if you knew the target in advance.

Even White House air defense is just Stinger teams on a spot target, I'm not talking some sort of concerted Patriot battery or overall theatre coverage of NYC or DC... that's just infeasable to maintain.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » June 17, 2004, 2:49 pm

Ashur wrote:Ever read Tom Clancy, Debt of Honor?

No but I bet Bin Laden read it.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » June 17, 2004, 2:51 pm

Tom Clancy had secret meetings with Bin Laden through literature! Oh my! Traitor! Pansy left winger!

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » June 17, 2004, 2:56 pm

Winnow wrote:
Ashur wrote:Ever read Tom Clancy, Debt of Honor?

No but I bet Bin Laden read it.

Nah, the CIA taught him (Bin Laden possibly Clancy too)the tactic...

XunilTlatoani · Post by **XunilTlatoani** » June 17, 2004, 3:43 pm

Kylere wrote:there is not a single human being I ever heard say, "Gee maybe we should put up a plan to shootdown civilian airliners that dare to stray from course, just in case they are a flying bomb"

Not only has it been said, they made a movie about it in 1996

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116253/

Seriously though, the NORAD cheif testified today that with today's security standards, they would have had about 8 minutes or so between intercepting the jets and when they were to crash, compared to them being 150 miles away when they crashed. He said they could have been shot down, but stopped short of saying they would have been. Just that they would have actually had time to decide if this was a legitimate threat or not, and made a decision from there.

I agree, Kylere, that shooting down a jet like that would spark public sentiments similar to what you described, but on the flip side, how would it have looked if two F-16s escorted a jet for 8 minutes directly to the WTC?

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » June 17, 2004, 3:55 pm

Winnow wrote:
Ashur wrote:Ever read Tom Clancy, Debt of Honor?

No but I bet Bin Laden read it.

I'll bet he did too...

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » June 17, 2004, 6:28 pm

It's ridiculous to even debate wether or not the 9/11 planes should have been shot down. The only incident EVER remotely like this was a very little known attempt at hitting the Eiffel Tower quite a while ago (only way I know is because my uncle was fairly high up in an airline, the whole incident was kept pretty quiet), and up until 9/11 hijackers had ALWAYS landed with demands. Can you even imagine the outcry if a F16 shot down the two planes over NYC? There was zero proof that they were going to hit a building (well unless CIA had even more info than we think), and you don't just kill several hundred of your own people out of the blue like that. Not to mention the carnage on the ground.

Not to mention, would YOU want to be the officer giving the order or the pilot pulling the trigger when there is no evidence nor history backing it up?