PDA

View Full Version : F-16 pilot was ready to ram hijacked plane on 9/11



bighead384
09-11-2011, 09:02 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/f-16-pilot-ready-ram-hijacked-plane-9-194138786.html


The people on Flight 93 were heroes, but they were going to die no matter what," she said. "My concern was how do I minimize collateral damage on the ground."

Crazy. I always wondered if they had something like this in the works that day.

Paint_It_Black
09-11-2011, 12:14 PM
The only crazy part is that they had no armed planes ready to go. Such a massive military budget, so much of our tax dollars wasted on tools of violence, yet the one time they're actually needed we had to rely on ramming a threat out of the sky.

bighead384
09-11-2011, 12:39 PM
It's disturbing to imagine that we we're close to being in a situation where we'd hear in the news about how we had to use our own air craft to take out a plane with out citizens aboard. I mean, I guess there's not much else you can do, but it's still shocking.

Paint_It_Black
09-11-2011, 10:55 PM
I'm not quite so sure we would have heard about it.

bighead384
09-11-2011, 10:59 PM
I'm not quite so sure we would have heard about it.

Wow. Maybe that's what happened to the plane that crashed in the field...

IamSam
09-12-2011, 03:45 PM
Wow. Maybe that's what happened to the plane that crashed in the field...

Flight 93 WAS that plane that crashed in the field.

mario_spaghettio
09-12-2011, 05:08 PM
I don't buy into any 9/11 conspiracy theories, but I'm fairly certain that the Flight 93 was shot down. The way they rushed to make the passengers heroes seems pretty transparent to me.

bighead384
09-12-2011, 05:35 PM
Flight 93 WAS that plane that crashed in the field.

I know, I'm talking about what caused the crash.

Anyone know any good resources for conspiracy theories about this?

I remember hearing that the passengers "broke into the cockpit". I don't quite get that. Wouldn't that be a crucial part of the plan that you'd think the terrorists wouldn't fuck up? What was different on this flight that allowed events to transpire the way they did?

jacknife737
09-12-2011, 06:49 PM
I know, I'm talking about what caused the crash.

Anyone know any good resources for conspiracy theories about this?

I remember hearing that the passengers "broke into the cockpit". I don't quite get that. Wouldn't that be a crucial part of the plan that you'd think the terrorists wouldn't fuck up? What was different on this flight that allowed events to transpire the way they did?

What exactly could they do to prevent a passenger uprising? It was exactly four hijackers armed with only knives versus an entire mob of people: it's hardly unreasonable to assume that any attempt to "retake" the plane would end badly for the terrorists.

The difference between what happen on flight 93 and what happened in NYC: is

1) Time: the events that took place on the planes that struck the two towers from the start of the hijacking to the eventual impact was less than an hour: Flight 93 took place over a longer time span, thus giving the passangers theoretically more time to plan/think about what they wanted to do:

2) the people on Flight 93 were in contact via cellphone to the outside world and thus were aware of the fate that met the other hijacked planes and so they knew that they needed to act: the people on the NYC bound planes had no idea what to expect.

And no, there are no good conspiracy theorist sources, because it's all just nonsense: look up something like loose change or any of the other poorly edited youtube videos if you must: it's all just gibberish.

bighead384
09-13-2011, 08:43 AM
Well, I have no idea how easy it is to breach a cockpit. That would have a big impact on my beliefs on this event. But you're right that they did have more time and more desperation because of the knowledge they possessed. It just seems like the terrorists would've had this planned out better. I mean, the White House (which Flight 93 was headed for) is the most important target. Why would the terrorists have such a poor plan that only requires people to simply knock down a door? They didn't make it anywhere near the White House. Also, I find it hard to believe that no planes where already armed, as the article states.

I'm not dead set on the conspiracy theory, I just can't help but question a few things about it, btw.

Paint_It_Black
09-13-2011, 06:29 PM
It just seems like the terrorists would've had this planned out better.

Most terrorists seem to be fairly incompetent. Fortunately for us.


Also, I find it hard to believe that no planes where already armed, as the article states.

Most governments seem to be fairly incompetent. Unfortunately for us.

The reason conspiracy theories exist is because some people would prefer to believe that the government is some evil all-powerful entity than a mostly incompetent sprawling mess. Like the people who believe the government allowed the WTC to fall, or even actively aided the destruction. To them, that scenario is less horrific to contemplate than one in which all the might of the USA was unable to protect one of the most important buildings in one of the most important cities. See, if it's all just the result of incompetence then that's chaotic and nobody can ever feel safe. But if the government was involved in it then at least that means the people in charge are actually in control.

IamSam
09-13-2011, 06:34 PM
What's easier? Getting through airport security, hijacking a plane, and crashing it into a building...

OR


a pilot accidentally pressing the 'bombs away' button and losing a multi-million dollar missile/bomb? (or some other situation, Example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1958_Tybee_Island_mid-air_collision)

Also, cockpits were much less protected back in pre 9/11 days. As I remember it, there was only a locked door knob between cockpit and cabin. Door attached to the locked knob, of course.