WI: Flight 11 was intercepted and shot by a jetfighter

[Michael Wittmann]

Shortly before the first plane slams into the WTC, two F-15s are sent to intercept Flight 11. What if they intercepted and shot the plane? Can the pilot go on trial for collateral damage or some sort?

[Lord Grattan]

Originally Posted by Michael Wittmann

Shortly before the first plane slams into the WTC, two F-15s are sent to intercept Flight 11. What if they intercepted and shot the plane? Can the pilot go on trial for collateral damage or some sort?

NORAD only had about 9 minutes of advance notification about the hijacking of Flight 11 so there's no way the fighters are going to arrive in time. In fact, the F-15s took off 7 minutes after flight 11 slammed into the WTC. None the less, to your question, there will be no survivors to put on trial as Mohamed Atta will, one way or another, die in the flames and carnage.

[Michael Wittmann]

Originally Posted by Lord Grattan

NORAD only had about 9 minutes of advance notification about the hijacking of Flight 11 so there's no way the fighters are going to arrive in time. In fact, the F-15s took off 7 minutes after flight 11 slammed into the WTC. None the less, to your question, there will be no survivors to put on trial as Mohamed Atta will, one way or another, die in the flames and carnage.

Yeah, but I meant by that the F-15s intercept Flight 11 earlier and shot the plane, can the pilot who shot the missile into Flight 11 be on trial for collateral damage?

[Lord Grattan]

Originally Posted by Michael Wittmann

Yeah, but I meant by that the F-15s intercept Flight 11 earlier and shot the plane, can the pilot who shot the missile into Flight 11 be on trial for collateral damage?

No, not if he was acting on orders and with permission.

[High Plains Drifter]

At the 10 year anniversary, the Washington Post ran a story on the junior of the two pilots who got off the ground (from Andrews I guess) to try and intercept UA 93 (which ultimately crashed in Pennsylvania).

According to the article they didn't have time to arm their planes. The junior pilot asked the senior pilot what they were going to do. The senior pilot simply said something like "the plane isn't going to make its target". The junior pilot said she never asked for further clarification and took it to mean they were going to have to ram the 757's engines. She never said anything about receiving official orders on how to engage. I guess that doesn't necessarily mean they weren't given.

Don't know if this adds anything, but at the time I found this article very interesting.

[Lord Grattan]

Originally Posted by High Plains Drifter

At the 10 year anniversary, the Washington Post ran a story on the junior of the two pilots who got off the ground (from Andrews I guess) to try and intercept UA 93 (which ultimately crashed in Pennsylvania).

According to the article they didn't have time to arm their planes. The junior pilot asked the senior pilot what they were going to do. The senior pilot simply said something like "the plane isn't going to make its target". The junior pilot said she never asked for further clarification and took it to mean they were going to have to ram the 757's engines. She never said anything about receiving official orders on how to engage. I guess that doesn't necessarily mean they weren't given.

Don't know if this adds anything, but at the time I found this article very interesting.

Yes, 2 F-16 fighters from Andrews were scrambled and ordered to intercept Flight 93; however, flight 93 had already crashed by the time they took off.