The only 9/11 CT I believe...

[Wat Tyler]

...is that the USAF shot down United Flight 93.

Furthermore, I aver that:

1) the US Govt was right to (heck, had a duty to) shoot it down, and also;

2) the US Govt. was right to (again, had a duty to) subsequently cover up its actions.

My apologies if this has been covered ad infinitum before, but I couldn't find it a discussion of it with the Search function (which is probably down to newbie incompetence).

Should anyone care (still have the willingness, after umpteen previous discussions of this?) to disagree with me, I'll happily explain why I believe the three statements.

[uk_dave]

I would tend to agree with you on both of your reasons, except that the physical evidence seems to suggest that a complete plane hit the ground, rather than one which had been destroyed (even partially) in the air.

[Wat Tyler]

I would tend to agree with you on both of your reasons, except that the physical evidence seems to suggest that a complete plane hit the ground, rather than one which had been destroyed (even partially) in the air.

I thought that one of the engines had been found 7 or 8 miles from the rest of the airliner?

That would certainly support the idea that someone had fired a heat-seeking missile at it.

My other problem with 'the official version' - the 'let's roll!' myth - is that I cannot understand why a group of technologically-literate Americans, having regained control of the airliner, would then pile it into the ground - or fail to radio for assistance during an attempted re-hijacking by the terrorists.

[uk_dave]

I thought that one of the engines had been found 7 or 8 miles from the rest of the airliner?

That would certainly support the idea that someone had fired a heat-seeking missile at it.

My other problem with 'the official version' - the 'let's roll!' myth - is that I cannot understand why a group of technologically-literate Americans, having regained control of the airliner, would then pile it into the ground - or fail to radio for assistance during an attempted re-hijacking by the terrorists.

I think you're wrong about the engine.

I think you're wrong about the passengers having regained control of the plane.

Got any sources?

[defaultdotxbe]

I thought that one of the engines had been found 7 or 8 miles from the rest of the airliner?

That would certainly support the idea that someone had fired a heat-seeking missile at it.

My other problem with 'the official version' - the 'let's roll!' myth - is that I cannot understand why a group of technologically-literate Americans, having regained control of the airliner, would then pile it into the ground - or fail to radio for assistance during an attempted re-hijacking by the terrorists.
no, only very small/light debris was found that far away, one engine was in the hole with the rest of the plane, the other was about 300ft (or so) feet away

the confusion usually stems from the fact that the engine was found in a pond, which people assume was indian lake, however it was just a small pond near the crash site

ETA: read the end of the CVR transcript http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/flight93cvr.html its clear the hijackers are still in control of the cockpit, but crashed the plane to prevent the passengers from regaining control

[David Wong]

And the passengers never gained control of the plane. It appears the terrorists are the ones who crashed it.

[Wat Tyler]

Thanks for the info - I'll get it read.

I am now, however, left with a more worrying thought - why wasn't the USAF ordered to shoot down Flight 93?

[Alt+F4]

...is that the USAF shot down United Flight 93.

Furthermore, I aver that:

1) the US Govt was right to (heck, had a duty to) shoot it down, and also;

2) the US Govt. was right to (again, had a duty to) subsequently cover up its actions.

If Bush admitted on 9/11-12 that UA93 was shot down I think the majority of Americans would have (sadly) admitted that it was the right course of action considering what had happened eariler in the day.

Why cover it up?

[Wat Tyler]

If Bush admitted on 9/11-12 that UA93 was shot down I think the majority of Americans would have (sadly) admitted that it was the right course of action considering what had happened eariler in the day.

Why cover it up?

To avoid making people too scared to board airliners in case they got hijacked and subsequently shot-down by the USAF.

As I understand it, a large part of the US economy involves people flying cross-country (and even if it isn't that large, those airlines employ a lot of people).

[defaultdotxbe]

Thanks for the info - I'll get it read.

I am now, however, left with a more worrying thought - why wasn't the USAF ordered to shoot down Flight 93?
posse commitatus act, the military cannot act as a law enforcement entity within the united states, this of course can be overridden by an order from the president (and was on 9/11) the order came through about 12 minutes after 93 crashed

another obstacle was the lack of fighters in position to intercept 93 in PA, alert fighters were stationed on the coastlines, expecting a need to intercept aircraft entering US airspace from outside

however, had 93 not crashed in PA it likely would have been shot down (or at least shot at) before reaching washington

[uk_dave]

To avoid making people too scared to board airliners in case they got hijacked and subsequently shot-down by the USAF.

As I understand it, a large part of the US economy involves people flying cross-country (and even if it isn't that large, those airlines employ a lot of people).

Well actually I would have gone for the "It was better to have the public (and the families of the victims) believe in a heroic act on the part of the passengers, than to admit that a USAF pilot shot the plane down and possibly inflict upon that pilot the scrutiny of the media and the conspiracy fantasists"

But the reality is that it would have been shot down had it been possible to do so before it was crashed.

[Alt+F4]

To avoid making people too scared to board airliners in case they got hijacked and subsequently shot-down by the USAF.

Since 9/11 I've believed that if the airplane I'm on is hijacked by terrorists over the United States that there is a strong possibility that it will be shot down by the military, yet I continue to fly.

Am I alone in this belief?

[Mr.D]

To avoid making people too scared to board airliners in case they got hijacked and subsequently shot-down by the USAF.


So, your reasoning is that after 9/11, people wouldn't be

"too scared to board airliners in case they got hijacked" and plowed into office buildings,

but people would be

"too scared to board airliners in case they got hijacked and subsequently shot-down by the USAF"

Personally given a choice, if I was on a hijacked airplane, I'd rather be shot down than used as a weapon to commit mass murder, but maybe that's just me.

[Myriad]

Thanks for the info - I'll get it read.

I am now, however, left with a more worrying thought - why wasn't the USAF ordered to shoot down Flight 93?


My understanding is that an order to shoot would have been moot until the plane had been intercepted, and that this had not happened by the time it crashed. I'm sure others can fill you in with the precise timeline, and point you to reliable sources for that information.

And I'm not sure I agree with you that ordering it shot down would have been the best thing to do. Especially not a "shoot immediately on sight" order which would be the only kind of order that would make any sense to give before the aircraft had been intercepted. Given fifteen minutes warning and a reasonable notion of the likely targets, I could see ordering government buildings evacuated rather than shooting down an airliner known to have civilian passengers. Though I wouldn't condemn an order to shoot either, under the circumstances.

Among the many other reasons to hold the Flight 93 passengers as heroes is that their actions spared the nation the need to decide -- or live with the consequences of the decision either way -- whether to deliberately take their lives to protect others.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Quad4_72]

Since 9/11 I've believed that if the airplane I'm on is hijacked by terrorists over the United States that there is a strong possibility that it will be shot down by the military, yet I continue to fly.

Am I alone in this belief?

I believe there would be no hesitation to shoot it down. I fly all the time. No offense wat but I think that is a very poor explanation for why the government would be afraid to tell the public they shot down a plane.

[ellindsey]

From my understanding no debris was found on the ground along the path taken by the airplane before it crashed. Pieces of one of the engine were found past the impact point, in the direction of the airplane's travel, and lightweight scraps were found downwind of the impact point, but nothing was found prior to the impact point. This suggests that the airplane was intact up until impact, and the debris found away from the impact point was either carried by the wind, or bounced or tumbled along the ground after impact.

[Wat Tyler]

So, your reasoning is that after 9/11, people wouldn't be

"too scared to board airliners in case they got hijacked" and plowed into office buildings,

but people would be

"too scared to board airliners in case they got hijacked and subsequently shot-down by the USAF"

Personally given a choice, if I was on a hijacked airplane, I'd rather be shot down than used as a weapon to commit mass murder, but maybe that's just me.

Prior to 9/11 hijacked airplanes would get flown to e.g. Cuba.

No-one would ever have thought to shoot them down, or, indeed, to try to wrest control of the plane back from the hijackers.

After 9/11, if I'm ever on a plane that gets hijacked, you can bet your eye-teeth that I'm fighting the hijacker(s), for the reasons that you mentioned - I do not wish to get ploughed into a skyscraper/famous building at 500 knots.

Of course, I am also aware that the local Govt might want to shoot it down if it is hijacked, and so it will be vital to ensure that the hijacker(s) never gain control of the flight.

Like you, I too would rather get shot down than used as part of a terrorist stunt.

From a Govt. POV, covering-up the shooting down of a hijacked plane would not prevent a reduction in flights due to a fear of hijacking - because the hijacking had already occurred and a downturn in business because of fear of being hijacked is thus inescapable - but it would prevent this extra 'fear factor' from putting folks off flying.

[Wat Tyler]

My understanding is that an order to shoot would have been moot until the plane had been intercepted, and that this had not happened by the time it crashed. I'm sure others can fill you in with the precise timeline, and point you to reliable sources for that information.


Cheers.


And I'm not sure I agree with you that ordering it shot down would have been the best thing to do. Especially not a "shoot immediately on sight" order which would be the only kind of order that would make any sense to give before the aircraft had been intercepted. Given fifteen minutes warning and a reasonable notion of the likely targets, I could see ordering government buildings evacuated rather than shooting down an airliner known to have civilian passengers. Though I wouldn't condemn an order to shoot either, under the circumstances.


Here's why I think the shootdown order IS the best thing to do:

On 9/11 three other hijacked airliners had been crashed into buildings - so I would argue that it was safe to count those on board as 'already dead'.

Only one of the three other planes was used to attack a Govt. building.
The other two hit a high-profile civilian target.

Washington DC is FULL of 'high-value targets' from a terrorist POV - most of which ARE Govt buildings, but can you imagine the propaganda value to al-Quaeda of having hit the White House or Capitol buildings?

What if you'd evacuated those buildings and they had actually decided instead to target say, the World Bank HQ?

You can't evacuate an entire city.

Even if letting them continue to their (unknown) target were to cause no casualties on the ground (which is, IMO, very unlikely), it would have gifted al-Quaeda a massive PR coup, and severely weakened the USA in the minds of other would-be terrorists.


Among the many other reasons to hold the Flight 93 passengers as heroes is that their actions spared the nation the need to decide -- or live with the consequences of the decision either way -- whether to deliberately take their lives to protect others.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Erm, others have said that the order to shoot had already been issued - just not in time to actually execute it - so their actions spared no decision.

[defaultdotxbe]

Here's why I think the shootdown order IS the best thing to do:

On 9/11 three other hijacked airliners had been crashed into buildings - so I would argue that it was safe to count those on board as 'already dead'.
but this is where you have to consider how you tell if a flight has been hijacked

example is delta 1989, it was reported hijacked by boston ATC, but it wasnt hijacked, it landed safely in cleveland (and was searched for bombs, but nothign was found)

what if they had shot down 1989?

[T.A.M.]

I think in order for a hijacked airplane to be shot down, post 9/11, you would have to have the following:

1. Announced as being hijacked OR drop from Radar.
2. NOT RESPOND to communications from ATC (unlikely in a legit hijack for ransom).
3. Failure to land or comply with escort request from intercepting aircraft, despite visual contact with pilot.

If all of these were met, you can be guaranteed that the hijackers are to use the aircrafts as missiles/weapons, or to blow them up anyway, so a shoot down would be justified.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

wrt to the engine, I think it was more like 800-900 yards away. The 8 mile debris field was a misquote based on the distance BY ROAD to where the furthest debris was found (over a lake I believe), not actually as the crow flies.

TAM:)

[Thunder]

A lot of these conspiracy theories wouldn't exist if Mr. Bush wasn't so damn secretive and was more forthcoming with evidence. Why doesn't he release more videos from the Pentagon? Why not release more photos of the whole reckage from flight 93? Being secretive is not evidence of foul play, but it is evidence of having something to hide. I have no doubt that if Gore was elected in 2000, a lot more of the evidence would have been released and people would be less quick to question what happened that day.

[Wat Tyler]

but this is where you have to consider how you tell if a flight has been hijacked

example is delta 1989, it was reported hijacked by boston ATC, but it wasnt hijacked, it landed safely in cleveland (and was searched for bombs, but nothign was found)

what if they had shot down 1989?

Then the Govt. would have been able to point to the other hijacked airliners being used as missiles, and point out the Boston ATC had said that the plane had been hijacked, and that they had therefore acted in the public's best interests by shooting it down.

(Plus, what T.A.M. said ;) )

[Mr.D]

From a Govt. POV, covering-up the shooting down of a hijacked plane would not prevent a reduction in flights due to a fear of hijacking - because the hijacking had already occurred and a downturn in business because of fear of being hijacked is thus inescapable - but it would prevent this extra 'fear factor' from putting folks off flying.

I must be misreading your argument. This is how I interpret it.

USG : It's late on September 11th, 2001. We just shot down Flight 93 after three other hijacked airliners crashed into both WTC Towers and the Pentagon with complete loss of all passengers and crew. From now on any attempt to hijack a passenger plane is going to be assumed by everyone on board to be a suicide plan. So now we have two choices.


1) Admit we shot flight 93 down. The public is going to be afraid of flying because four planeloads of people are dead because of the actions of hijackers.

2) Cover up the shootdown. The public is going to be even more afraid of flying because three planeloads of people are dead because of the actions of hijackers AND one more planeload of people is dead because of the actions of hijackers.
We run the risk of being discovered. If/When that happens people will be suspicious of the coverup and ask if we destroyed the three other planes as well.

I don't buy it.

[T.A.M.]

A lot of these conspiracy theories wouldn't exist if Mr. Bush wasn't so damn secretive and was more forthcoming with evidence. Why doesn't he release more videos from the Pentagon? Why not release more photos of the whole reckage from flight 93? Being secretive is not evidence of foul play, but it is evidence of having something to hide. I have no doubt that if Gore was elected in 2000, a lot more of the evidence would have been released and people would be less quick to question what happened that day.

Parky is that you, or did your schizophrenic truther side come out?

He is not being secretive. Now if the Democratic Party demanded this info to be released, and he refused, that would be secretive...not when a bunch of nutcases with no business having access to such things asks for it.

TAM:)

[Big Les]

wrt to the engine, I think it was more like 800-900 yards away. The 8 mile debris field was a misquote based on the distance BY ROAD to where the furthest debris was found (over a lake I believe), not actually as the crow flies.

TAM:)

Yep. Amusingly, the BBC Conspiracy Files doco claimed that it was Google maps that the CTists had used to get the distance, which of course is a road route-finder, not a distance-measurer... the road distance is about 6-7 miles; as the crow flies it's less than 1. Popular Mechanics has a good refutation of this myth (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=8), including an annotated aerial photo.

[Thunder]

Interesting point. Caving in to questions from conspiracy theorists is never a good thing. It only strengthens them. But I, personally, would like to see a photograph of all the wreckage from flight 93. And I would like to see some if not all of the pictures from the Pentagon. Just for my amusement.

[T.A.M.]

Interesting point. Caving in to questions from conspiracy theorists is never a good thing. It only strengthens them. But I, personally, would like to see a photograph of all the wreckage from flight 93. And I would like to see some if not all of the pictures from the Pentagon. Just for my amusement.

Are you ok....you havent been dipping into the whiskey have you?

Amusement...

TAM:jaw-dropp

[The Doc]

If flight 93 was to be shot down, I doubt the pilots of 93 would have any idea that they have been locked on. Therefore, it seems that the "There is no god but allah" that jihadists say right before they kill themselves would have been a little inappropriate.

Unless commercial aircraft have the same lock-on detection as fighter jets do, but I'm not sure. I would assume though, that if they did - the FDR would probably log it when the plane is engaged by a missile.

[stateofgrace]

I do agree that the shooting down of Flight 93 is probably about the most plausible conspiracy there are about 911 but it seems unlikely this did happen. All the evidence suggests otherwise, the black voice recorder suggests otherwise and I believe that data recorder shows otherwise.

The way I see it, is if this plane was shot down then there is no reason to cover it up, there is nothing at all to be gained by covering it up.

The hijackers were on a suicide mission; their entire aim was to install fear and panic.

Had they hit their eventual target they win, had they forced the USAF to shoot down a plane full of passengers they win, had they simply slammed it into the ground they win. As soon as they took control of the aircraft, they have won, simply by virtue of the fact that the outcome of any suicide mission is to spread fear and panic.

[Gravy]

I thought that one of the engines had been found 7 or 8 miles from the rest of the airliner?Part of one engine had bounced about 300 yards downhill, in the direction of the plane's travel. The plane impacted at a 40-degree angle, upside-down, at 580 mph.

The FDR data show that the plane was intact and its systems were operating normally at impact. This would not be the case had the plane been disabled by a missile or gunfire. The plane’s roll angle corresponds to eyewitness reports:

1. Cabin pressure - NORMAL
2. Hydraulics - NORMAL
3. Cargo fire - NORMAL
4. Smoke - NORMAL
5. Engines - RUNNING
6. Engine RPM (N1) 70%
7. Fuel pressure - NORMAL
8. Engine vibration - LO
9. Wind direction - WEST
10. Wind speed - 25 kts
11. Pitch angle - 40 deg down
12. Airspeed - 500 kts
13. Heading - 180 deg
14. Roll angle - 150 deg right
15. AoA - 20 deg negative

That would certainly support the idea that someone had fired a heat-seeking missile at it.There is simply no evidence whatsoever to support that hypothesis. No fighter aircraft were armed and aloft in the area.

My other problem with 'the official version' - the 'let's roll!' myth - is that I cannot understand why a group of technologically-literate Americans, having regained control of the airliner, would then pile it into the ground - or fail to radio for assistance during an attempted re-hijacking by the terrorists.The other posters are correct. The cockpit flight recordings show that the terrorists were at the controls and brought the plane down as the passengers were attempting to enter the cockpit.

NEADS didn't learn about flight 93 until 4 minutes after it crashed. The most notice the U.S. military had of any of the hijacked planes, before they crashed, was 9 minutes.

10:07:16
CLEVELAND CENTER: We got a United 93 out here. Are you aware of that?
WATSON: United 93?
CLEVELAND CENTER: That has a bomb on board.
WATSON: A bomb on board?! And this is confirmed? You have a [beacon code], sir?
CLEVELAND CENTER: No, we lost his transponder.Some resources for understanding the military response on 9/11:

The NORAD Response to 9/11 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70300) (excellent summary by Andrew Burfield with link to detailed timeline)

Vanity Fair Article on the NORAD 9/11 response (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608) with excerpts from NORAD's recordings

[Thunder]

Ahh. Leave it to Gravy to clear it all up for us. What would we do without him?

[Gravy]

Interesting point. Caving in to questions from conspiracy theorists is never a good thing. It only strengthens them. But I, personally, would like to see a photograph of all the wreckage from flight 93.What do you hope to determine by seeing that photo?

And I would like to see some if not all of the pictures from the Pentagon.You have.

Just for my amusement.Do you have reason to believe that the government and all the investigators are lying about what happened to flight 93 and at the Pentagon? Is there something unconvincing about the photos that have been released?

[Gravy]

A lot of these conspiracy theories wouldn't exist if Mr. Bush wasn't so damn secretive and was more forthcoming with evidence. Why doesn't he release more videos from the Pentagon? I don't know why, but you're confusing George Bush with the 9/11 investigators. Edit: And what videos from the Pentagon do you want released? The "84 videos" collected by the FBI were from security cameras all over the area, within miles. They were collected on the hope that they might show something significant, not because they were known to.

[Gravy]

posse commitatus act, the military cannot act as a law enforcement entity within the united states, this of course can be overridden by an order from the president (and was on 9/11) the order came through about 12 minutes after 93 crashedThat's not entirely accurate. The military did have authorization to act on its own against an imminent air threat, which flight 93 certainly was. On the NORAD tapes we hear Colonel Nasypany giving a "negative shoot down" order to fighters that had spotted a target near D.C. The pilots were told to get "Type, ID, tail." Good thing, because the planes they had on their radar scopes were fighters. The point is, Nasypany, not a higher-up, was legally giving the order to shoot or not to shoot.

[gumboot]

Just to clarify...

As Gravy pointed out NEADS were not notified that UA93 had been hijacked until after it had already crashed. Furthermore, no shoot-down order was received by NEADS until after the attacks had finished.

Following sensible protocol, NEADS determined that pilots would not be issued general shoot-down authority. Instead, each individual incident would be addressed after a successful interception had been made.

None of the four aircraft were successfully intercepted on 9/11, nor would it have been realistically possible for any of them to have been successfully intercepted on 9/11. Thus the issue of a shoot-down order is entirely moot.

Data recovered from UA93's black box indicates that the passengers never got past the cockpit door, that the hijackers intentionally crashed the aircraft into the ground, and that it was functioning normally upon impact.

At 1003, when UA93 crashed, the fighter defense status is as follows:

1) A pair of F-15C Eagles from Otis ANGB, scrambled by NEADS in response to the hijacking of AA11, is flying a CAP over Manhattan
2) A pair of F-16 Falcons from Langley AFB, scrambled by NEADS in response to an incorrect report of AA11 heading to Washington DC, are flying CAP over Washington DC
3) Unarmed fighters from Selfridge Field, Michigan are being scrambled to intercept Delta 1989, a suspected hijacking.
4) Fighters from the 121st FS, based at Andrews AFB, have been scrambled by the Secret Service to maintain a CAP over Washington DC in anticipation of UA93's arrival. Although unarmed, the aircraft have been given permission to use force, and pilots are considering ramming any hijacked airliners.

None of the sets of aircraft mentioned above was anywhere near Shankesville at 1003.

-Gumboot

[Thunder]

I guess there is still a little conspiracy theorist inside of me who would like to see a picture of all the wreckage from the plane. If that doesn't happen, I will still believe that the plane did most likely crash there. As to the CC camera footage from the Pentagon, weren't there lots of other cameras in the area? If I am wrong, then I am wrong. But what about the footage from the Virginia DOT traffic camera. What ever happened to that? Im sure Judicial Watch has filed a FOIA request but they still haven't got it. That should clearly show the plane crashing into the Pentagon. But, once again, if I am wrong, please correct me.

[gumboot]

That's not entirely accurate. The military did have authorization to act on its own against an imminent air threat, which flight 93 certainly was. On the NORAD tapes we hear Colonel Nasypany giving a "negative shoot down" order to fighters that had spotted a target near D.C. The pilots were told to get "Type, ID, tail." Good thing, because the planes they had on their radar scopes were fighters. The point is, Nasypany, not a higher-up, was legally giving the order to shoot or not to shoot.



Just a nitpick... that's not true. Nasypany is clearly angry in the recordings that he does not have permission to fire.

In the event of a full scale attack the military establishes the SCATANA Plan, which transfers full control of US airspace to the military (a limited version of SCATANA was implemented without a few hours of the attacks). Only under SCATANA does the military have free authority to engage any hostile targets at will.

Under regular conditions, it would be illegal for NORAD to engage a civilian target.

-Gumboot

[~enigma~]

I guess there is still a little conspiracy theorist inside of me.Some ECT will correct that promptly :)

[gumboot]

I guess there is still a little conspiracy theorist inside of me who would like to see a picture of all the wreckage from the plane. If that doesn't happen, I will still believe that the plane did most likely crash there. As to the CC camera footage from the Pentagon, weren't there lots of other cameras in the area? If I am wrong, then I am wrong. But what about the footage from the Virginia DOT traffic camera. What ever happened to that? Im sure Judicial Watch has filed a FOIA request but they still haven't got it. That should clearly show the plane crashing into the Pentagon. But, once again, if I am wrong, please correct me.



Traffic cameras broadcast live. The feed is not recorded. A similar thing occurred with The Pentagon security cameras - they tend to rely on "live" security - that is actual people sitting there watching the video.

One must consider what the purpose of surveillance is. If the purpose is to capture evidence of a crime being committed, it makes sense to record the feed - such as with a petrol station. However if the purpose is to give security staff situational awareness so they can PREVENT anything occurring, recording the feed is pointless.

-Gumboot

[Thunder]

That...is a good point. I doubt traffic cameras in NYC are recorded, so there is no reason to think the good folks in Virginia are any different.

As to ECT curing my wee conspiracy theorist that lerks in side of me, I think I will stick to Gatorade and Raman noodles, the dinner of champions!!!!

[~enigma~]

That...is a good point. I doubt traffic cameras in NYC are recorded, so there is no reason to think the good folks in Virginia are any different.

As to ECT curing my wee conspiracy theorist that lerks in side of me, I think I will stick to Gatorade and Raman noodles, the dinner of champions!!!!
At the risk of being cruel...Parky I don't think you know what ECTs are but they have nothing to do with dinner...well maybe scrambled sweetbreads :)

[Gravy]

Just a nitpick... that's not true. Nasypany is clearly angry in the recordings that he does not have permission to fire.Thanks for that correction. I'll have to listen to those recordings again.

In the event of a full scale attack the military establishes the SCATANA Plan, which transfers full control of US airspace to the military (a limited version of SCATANA was implemented without a few hours of the attacks). Only under SCATANA does the military have free authority to engage any hostile targets at will.

Under regular conditions, it would be illegal for NORAD to engage a civilian target.

-GumbootUnder regular conditions, yes. But this was a condition where an immediate response was needed because the country was under attack. I believe it would have been justifiable for NORAD, in assisting civilian authorities, to shoot down flight 93 without approval from higher-ups, based on these directives:

DOD memo CJCSI 3610.01A June, 2001 AIRCRAFT PIRACY (HIJACKING) AND DESTRUCTION OF DERELICT AIRBORNE OBJECTS http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf

4. Policy.
a. Aircraft Piracy (Hijacking) of Civil and Military Aircraft. Pursuant to references a and b, the Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), has exclusive responsibility to direct law enforcement activity related to actual or attempted aircraft piracy (hijacking) in the “special aircraft jurisdiction” of the United States. When requested by the Administrator, Department of Defense will provide assistance to these law enforcement efforts. Pursuant to reference c, the NMCC is the focal point within Department of Defense for providing assistance. In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference d, forward requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval. DOD assistance to the FAA will be provided in accordance with reference d. Additional guidance is provided in Enclosure A.

DoD Directive 3025.15, "Military Assistance to Civil Authorities", February 18, 1997 ("Reference D" from DOD directive DOD memo CJCSI 3610.01A June, 2001) http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/302515p.pdf

Nothing in this Directive prevents a commander from exercising his or her immediate emergency response authority as outlined in DoD Directive 3025.1 (reference (g))

4.5. With the exception of immediate responses under imminently serious conditions, as provided in subparagraph 4.7.1., below, any support that requires the deployment of forces or equipment assigned to a Combatant Command by Secretary of Defense Memorandum (reference (j)), must be coordinated with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

4.7. Requests for military assistance should be made and approved in the following
ways:

4.7.1. Immediate Response. Requests for an immediate response (i.e., any form of immediate action taken by a DoD Component or military commander to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage under imminently serious conditions) may be made to any Component or Command. The DoD Components that receive verbal requests from civil authorities for support in an exigent emergency may initiate informal planning and, if required, immediately respond as authorized in DoD Directive 3025.1 (reference (g)). Civil authorities shall be informed that verbal requests for support in an emergency must be followed by a written request. As soon as practical, the DoD Component or Command rendering assistance shall report the fact of the request, the nature of the response, and any other pertinent information through the chain of command to the DoD Executive Secretary, who shall notify the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and any other appropriate officials. If the report does not include a copy of the civil authorities' written request, that request shall be forwarded to the DoD Executive Secretary as soon as it is available.


DOD Directive 3025.1 Military Support to Civil Authorities (MSCA) (Reference G" from DoD Directive 3025.15) http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/302501p.pdf (http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/302501p.pdf)

4.5. Immediate Response
4.5.1. Imminently serious conditions resulting from any civil emergency or attack may require immediate action by military commanders, or by responsible officials of other DoD Agencies, to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage. When such conditions exist and time does not permit prior approval from higher headquarters, local military commanders and responsible officials of other DoD Components are authorized by this Directive, subject to any supplemental direction that may be provided by their DoD Component, to take necessary action to respond to requests of civil authorities. All such necessary action is referred to in this Directive as "Immediate Response."

4.9. Emergency Priorities. When guidance cannot be obtained from higher headquarters on a timely basis, due to attack on the United States or other emergency circumstances, the DoD Components should apply DoD resources to MSCA in the following order of priority:

4.9.1. To save human life and mitigate human suffering, and to protect essential U.S. Government capabilities, including:
4.9.1.1. Continuity of the U.S. Government.
4.9.1.2. Protection of U.S. Government officials.
4.9.1.3. Prevention of loss or destruction to Federal property.
4.9.1.4. Restoration of essential Federal functions.
4.9.2. To preserve or restore services of State and local government.

E2.1.18. Immediate Response. Any form of immediate action taken by a DoD Component or military commander, under the authority of this Directive and any supplemental guidance prescribed by the Head of a DoD Component, to assist civil authorities or the public to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage under imminently serious conditions occurring where there has not been any declaration of major disaster or emergency by the President or attack.

E2.1.19. Imminently Serious Conditions. Emergency conditions in which, in the judgment of the military commander or responsible DoD official, immediate and possibly serious danger threatens the public and prompt action is needed to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage. Under these conditions, timely prior approval from higher headquarters may not be possible before action is necessary for effective response.

[gumboot]

Thanks for that correction. I'll have to listen to those recordings again.

Under regular conditions, yes. But this was a condition where an immediate response was needed because the country was under attack. I believe it would have been justifiable for NORAD, in assisting civilian authorities, to shoot down flight 93 without approval from higher-ups, based on these directives:



This may be. It would surely be a contentious discussion after the fact...

The issue here is under US law at the time any terrorist attack was seen as a crime, not an act of war.

The way I see it there's three ways of looking at this:

1) What the letter of the law was
2) What the government's response would be post-event
3) What the commanders felt comfortable doing

I feel confident saying that 2) can be dismissed - I don't think anyone in official circles would have found fault in hindsight with the military shooting down one of the airliners. (Having said that I can see it being an ugly and messy issue with the airline company and relatives of passengers)

The key here, in my mind, is the letter of the law, and what commanders felt comfortable with.

The stuff you've addressed relates to assisting civil authorities, however it mentions nothing about using force, and more importantly military doctrine and directives are still required to abide by Federal legislation - specifically the Posse Comitatus Act. Because terrorism at the time was only recognised as a crime, and because of the Posse Comitatus Act, and because no explicit requests were made to actually use force, it's very unclear whether the use of force against a hijacked civilian airliner would be legal or not.

As such, we come to 3). As a commander, the question is, are you willing to make the decision on your own to use force, possibly illegally, and deal with the consequences later? At what level should this decision be made? The pilots? The Mission Crew Commander? The Commander of NEADS...?

Bear in mind that those from Major Nasypany's level down seemed to have made a decision that force would be needed. However they sought this authority from their commanding officers, who would not permit force until their commanding officers permitted them, and so forth.

Ultimately someone in the NORAD chain of command decided that this decision had to be made by The President.

-Gumboot

[Myriad]

Among the many other reasons to hold the Flight 93 passengers as heroes is that their actions spared the nation the need to decide -- or live with the consequences of the decision either way -- whether to deliberately take their lives to protect others.

Erm, others have said that the order to shoot had already been issued - just not in time to actually execute it - so their actions spared no decision.


Based on the information referenced subsequently in this thread, I stand by my original assessment.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[defaultdotxbe]

That's not entirely accurate. The military did have authorization to act on its own against an imminent air threat, which flight 93 certainly was. On the NORAD tapes we hear Colonel Nasypany giving a "negative shoot down" order to fighters that had spotted a target near D.C. The pilots were told to get "Type, ID, tail." Good thing, because the planes they had on their radar scopes were fighters. The point is, Nasypany, not a higher-up, was legally giving the order to shoot or not to shoot.
i got something different from the transcripts

NASYPANY (to floor): Negative. Negative clearance to shoot.… Goddammit!…

it seems to me hes not happy with the negative clearance, the actual tape would probably put it in a better context, but thats how i interprested that

ETA: i see gumboot got to this already :)