9/11: Delta Air Lines Flight 2315 collides with United Airlines Flight 175

James G

Gone Fishin'
All this Flight 93 talk disregards the F-16s scrambled out of Andrews AFB and Toledo, OH rushing to down the airliner before it reached DC, not to mention whatever air defenses were covering the Mall area. The chances of the airliner making a controlled crash are very slim.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...4d231dfde50_story.html?utm_term=.083f530c3d20
http://www.toledoblade.com/local/2011/09/02/Local-F-16-pilot-reflects-on-role-chaos-of-9-11.html

Were the F-16s armed? IIRC the earlier F-15s, which went out to sea, had only shells for their cannons. So much for national air defence missions! Plus, as I say above, where and how you hit a massive target like a full-loaded aircraft is really important because that aircraft is coming down somewhere, even when hit it can be crashed purposely somewhere.
 
Were the F-16s armed? IIRC the earlier F-15s, which went out to sea, had only shells for their cannons. So much for national air defence missions! Plus, as I say above, where and how you hit a massive target like a full-loaded aircraft is really important because that aircraft is coming down somewhere, even when hit it can be crashed purposely somewhere.
They talk about just that in the articles. The DC ANG pilots were armed with only practice rounds, but briefed that they would ram the cockpit and tail.
 
Air defences? An agent, maybe two with Stinger's. A little bang will make no different if the aircraft is coming in. Something I've always had issue with when regards to post 9-11 talk of shooting down an aircraft. Unless its blown into millions of tiny pieces, if you bring its down then it hits somewhere else. If a 747 or suchlike is hit with several SAMs on its way in then it isn't going to stop or turn away.
This is a really good point. I think that even if you did shoot the plane, there's still going be big chunks like engines flying into buildings near the national mall, and it's likely that the sharp pieces of metal fuselage would maim and or kill anybody outside. I think that having the plane directly hit either the Capitol or the White House actually would have a lower casualty rate.
 

James G

Gone Fishin'
The credit goes to Tom Clancy: end of the book Debt of Honor.
If - and it is an if - a Secret Service agent has a shoulder-mounted Stinger it is not breaking up that plane, sending it off course or stopping it.
But, then there is the earlier raised point that hitting the White House, even the Capitol, would be very hard.
 
Air defences? An agent, maybe two with Stinger's. A little bang will make no different if the aircraft is coming in. Something I've always had issue with when regards to post 9-11 talk of shooting down an aircraft. Unless its blown into millions of tiny pieces, if you bring its down then it hits somewhere else. If a 747 or suchlike is hit with several SAMs on its way in then it isn't going to stop or turn away.

It's still a Boeing wide-body aiming at a small target and being flown way above the legal limit in a fast, steep dive. If Jarrah suffers a sudden loss of power or a key control surface is knocked out or even if the cockpit gets hit directly (later Stinger models have the ability to target the glare from the glass) he probably wouldn't be able to recover it. The thing does have to land somewhere but it would be fairly easy to knock it off course and prevent it from hitting the White House.
 

James G

Gone Fishin'
I agree. My point was that any air defences are useless overall. So if the Stinger does its magic that aircraft is coming down and hard too.
 
I've never heard this. That would confirm that the Capitol Building was United 93's target.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-Shibh both were interviewed after 9/11 and confirmed that the Capitol had been selected as the target. IIRC they also stated that was a consideration.
 
Top