9/11 Theory about that jet that crashed... or did it?

Cliffjumper · Post by **Cliffjumper** » Mon Aug 19, 2002 10:34 pm

This could be old news. If it is, ignore the topic and it will fall down down down and you won't have to bother with it. Or you can act like a jackass, post how you spoke about this ages ago and give me an excuse to keep this bumped up to the top of the page for the next 3 years....

Aaaaanyway, there was a theory in some newspaper this week that the other plane involved in the terrorist attacks didn't actually crash via the effort of the passengers onboard, but was in fact shot down by the USAF [I think it was White House bound or something, a bit later than the others], with theorists pointing to the wide area that the debris was scattered over, more consistent with a mid-air explosion than a crash... Just wondering what you bods thought? Crashed or shot down? If shot down, was it justifiable? Or was it a bit of both [the passengers were able to slow the terrorists down enough for the USAF to vector in on it and take it out]... Any thoughts?

EDIT: Oh, and the other piece of evidence I've seen cited was that the Government/FBI/whoever won't release the last few minutes of the Black Box recording, which coincides with the window that the closest USAF fighters would have been able to reach the plane at scramble speed...

Bombshell · Post by **Bombshell** » Mon Aug 19, 2002 10:46 pm

Originally posted by Quicksilver
Any thoughts?

Yeah, here's a thought...

This topic will be closed sometime in the next ten minutes.

Cliffjumper · Post by **Cliffjumper** » Mon Aug 19, 2002 10:47 pm

Redstreak · Post by **Redstreak** » Mon Aug 19, 2002 10:51 pm

This sounds new to me, but there are pictures, I saw one of them on the CNN special over the weekend. It hit the ground with such impact that it collapsed in on itself. Remember, none of the heroes was a pilot, so taking out the terrorists was one thing, landing it was another.

It's just one of those wild conspiracy theories out there; not the first, not the last. I wouldn't pay it any mind, sheer speculation. As you said, theories. People seeking money and attention by saying something might be different. I believe the proper term is "attention whore" or something.

Cliffjumper · Post by **Cliffjumper** » Mon Aug 19, 2002 10:55 pm

oh, I admit it's pure speculation, but I was more interested in the rammifications of such a decision possibly being taken... I mean, would the US military be justified in shooting down a plane full of civilians [admittedly one which would crash by itself anyway] in order to save the President and his staff?

oh, and cheers for an intelligent reply

Computron · Post by **Computron** » Mon Aug 19, 2002 11:00 pm

I've always maintained that the plane was shot down, I personally can't see how it would crash with such intenisty otherwise. I mean the USAF would of been on it as soon as the first plane hit the towers (i.e on that day any plane lost had fighters on it immediatly, especially after the Pentagon)

Also I can't fly a plane but I could give it a damm good go and would at least keep it airbourne until a) we got communications back or b)it ran out of fuel in which case the landing wouldn't be nose first into the ground

The moment we heard that was down me and all my mates all said it was shot down.

--Compy

Jim · Post by **Jim** » Mon Aug 19, 2002 11:01 pm

There was an investigation (probably were more) back on 9/11 with the reports saying it wasn't shot down by a US Fighter. I know the Black Box was recovered from the wreck, but don't recall any details that were on the recorder. I'm thinking the fight that took place messed up the controls which led them to crash or the Americans on board didn't know how to fly the plane.

EDIT:
These planes are some of the biggest around, so I imagine the plane went down at a great speed which ignited the fuel on impact and incerated the plane.

CloudStrifer · Post by **CloudStrifer** » Mon Aug 19, 2002 11:12 pm

It Could have, cause, I may be wrong in this so forgive me, the Presidents life was more important than civilians. If I am wrong plz forgive me.

Redstreak · Post by **Redstreak** » Mon Aug 19, 2002 11:29 pm

Originally posted by Computron
I mean the USAF would of been on it as soon as the first plane hit the towers (i.e on that day any plane lost had fighters on it immediatly, especially after the Pentagon)

You'd think, but that didn't happen. The planes didn't start mobilizing until after the Pentagon was hit, and Flight 93 went down not long after that, right before or right after the order had been given to clear the skies. There wasn't enough time for them to get from central command at MacDill here in Tampa(which is where mobilization orders came to first; Bush was even here that day) to Pennsylvania that fast.

Jim's got it pegged; remember, like the others, this was a cross-country flight loaded with fuel.

The question Cliffy poses is the point of the thread; is the President's life, or the lives of the people on the ground, more important than those in the plane? That's a question movies ask all the time...and one with no easy answer. No life, to me, is more important than the next. But I believe they would have shot it down in the interest of national security, because the President's life is valued over that of civilians.

Shrapnel Clone · Post by **Shrapnel Clone** » Mon Aug 19, 2002 11:29 pm

Well, the American president still could be saved, the passengers could not. I too would have chosen for damage control, even if I were on the plane. They had no chance to survive, so they died taking as few people as possible with them. But the US government can't admit shooting down their own aircraft. Not only would there be lawsuits from there to Tokyo, but people would lose all their trust in the government.....

This is, of course, all hypothetical. It might have just crashed.....

And I don't think the President's life is more important than the civilians. The President serves the people, not the other way around.

Post by **Denyer** » Mon Aug 19, 2002 11:32 pm

Originally posted by CloudStrifer
I may be wrong in this so forgive me, the Presidents life was more important than civilians. If I am wrong plz forgive me.

Most people would argue the exact opposite in the case of the currently incumbent 'member'...

There's no reason the flight recorder infomation would have to be withheld unless something remains unpublicised. Also, bear in mind what junior pilots are paid these days... keeping a plane in the air (with sufficient fuel, and especially with ground contact) isn't that complex.

Oh, and Bombers: Why, pray tell?

Claypool · Post by **Claypool** » Tue Aug 20, 2002 12:02 am

well, if it was shot down because it was on course to the white house, then yes, i totally agree on shooting it down. Yes, its horrible, but it saved more lives. We need some green jello up in here

Galvatron91 · Post by **Galvatron91** » Tue Aug 20, 2002 12:23 am

i'm going to be resident a$$hole here...which is my job. Does it really matter? The people who it has been said brought that plane down are heroes...heroes to their families, their country and to me. They are to be remembered that way...had I been on that flight, I would have done the same thing. I personally don't wish to see their memory cheapened by conspiracy theories...

Post by **Sades** » Tue Aug 20, 2002 1:41 am

Does it really matter?

No, it doesn't; But people will talk, anyway. Human nature... people ask questions. I personally don't see it as cheapening the memories of those that were on the plane... It's all hypothetical to me, and will remain so until proven otherwise. Those on the plane are heroes, and will continue to remain so despite what's said, really... it wasn't the US government who made the attempt to take back what had been wrongfully taken in that instance...

would the US military be justified in shooting down a plane full of civilians [admittedly one which would crash by itself anyway] in order to save the President and his staff?

I'll admit that I don't have all the details and am going strictly by memory... but here goes.

I suppose it would have been justifiable; Though the passengers had taken control of the plane, there was no guarantee that they could have diverted it's course. And with the States under attack, they needed their President alive, as well as the White House staff. The US government did what it had to, if indeed it did do anything at all.

But that doesn't make it right, or any less of a tragedy...

Post by **Denyer** » Tue Aug 20, 2002 1:47 am

G, what would your opinion be if it were the facts of the situation?

Personally I don't see how it affects — going up against armed aggressors counts as heroism in my book.

It simply strikes me as farcical to save one guy who actually has his shots called for him anyway over a large group of others. Especially with fore-warning which would have enabled evacuation of the White House. This leads to a scenario in which people die to protect a pile of bricks and mortar... which is obscene.

CloudStrifer · Post by **CloudStrifer** » Tue Aug 20, 2002 1:47 am

Originally posted by Stuart Denyer
Most people would argue the exact opposite in the case of the currently incumbent 'member'...

Amm...What do you mean by this?

Jim · Post by **Jim** » Tue Aug 20, 2002 1:50 am

Bush wasn't in the White House, he ran away to some bunker in Mississippi(?).

Post by **Denyer** » Tue Aug 20, 2002 1:50 am

Originally posted by CloudStrifer
Amm...What do you mean by this?

Well, provided you read from left-to-right it makes a sentence.

CloudStrifer · Post by **CloudStrifer** » Tue Aug 20, 2002 1:52 am

No No I am sorry but I meant what 'member' are you talking about?

Post by **Denyer** » Tue Aug 20, 2002 1:57 am

Incumbent (n.) : The official who holds an office.

TFARCHIVE FORUMS

9/11 Theory about that jet that crashed... or did it?

9/11 Theory about that jet that crashed... or did it?

Re: 9/11 Theory about that jet that crashed... or did it?