WI the Flights Were Shot Down Over Manhattan

This was brought up in another September 11 thread, but I thought it was worthy enough for its own discussion.

Anyway, WI some governmental organization was a little bit more on the ball that day and ordered USAF or USN fighters up over Manhattan after the first plane struck the Towers. Air traffic control, military radar, etc. see the second plane coming in and the military jets are ordered to shoot the plane down. They do so, but unfortunately the flaming debris and fuel ends up splattering all over Manhattan. The carnage is horrific, perhaps even greater than what happened OTL.

What does this change, specifically in regards to the public perception of September 11 and how the USA prosecutes the "War on Terror" afterwards? Would this have any interesting or far-reaching effects on the world?
 

boredatwork

Banned
Air traffic control, military radar, etc. see the second plane coming in and the military jets are ordered to shoot the plane down. They do so, but unfortunately the flaming debris and fuel ends up splattering all over Manhattan. The carnage is horrific, perhaps even greater than what happened OTL.

Plausibilty concern with PoD -

If the plane is shot down:

1. the debris is not going to do that much damage - we've had entire jets plow through residential neighborhoods with moderate casualties. A mid air strike is going to result in a fireball, some shattered windows, and possibly 4 sizable impacts from the engines coming down - but the death toll would not be that impressive from the shoot down.

2. What could get you the huge death toll is actually the fact that only one plane hit the towers. Either tower that is hit is going to go down as per OTL. I strongly doubt the other tower could have survived that disintegration happening next door - the damage from the debris would be greatest at lower levels of the 'missed' tower, possibly resulting a 'timber' situation - which would have wiped out quite a few blocks outside of the WTC site, and given you your mass casualties.

to the point of the POD - the bigger the death toll, the bigger the emotional impact, which implies a stronger reaction in the short term. This is a scenario which might well lead to some of the horror stories about torched mosques and the rest coming true, at least until the feds got their act together and started clamping down.

You might get more support for war on terror measures in the short term, but political calculations and dynamics will take over at some point, so you'll see the same divisions at some point.
 
Terrific controversy. 9/11 would be seen more as a massive air disaster with suspected, but unproven, links to international terrorism. Many, many, people would see the loss of life and property damage the result of over-agressive and incompetent reaction by the US government to an uncertain threat. Parallels would be drawn with the Soviet shoot-down of the KAL airliner. From the get go it would be a hot political issue. The Bush administration would attempt to make the case it was responding to a real terrorist threat, but it would have a hard time proving the shoot-downs were absolutely required - since no actual terrorist attack would have occurred. From the start, some Democrats and others in the mainstream media would question the Administration's story. Even if it was proven the planes were hijacked, many people will wonder what the actual intent of the hijackers was. If Osama was smart, he'd keep quiet. Even if he got on Al Jazzera and claimed responsibility for the hijackings and intended suicide attacks, what people would react to is hundreads of dead people shot down by their own government, not thousands killed by terrorists.

THe Administration would not get the degree of international support it got in the early stages. Domestically, it would be sued by the airlines and lawyers representing the passengers. US reaction military would probably be limited to an intensive - unilateral - bombing of potential Al-Qaida targets in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Some would see this as an unjustified attempt to divert attention from the government's own incompetence. No regime change in Afghanistan. No GITMO. Domestically, it would be the source of countless controversy theories and probably lead to an impeachment of George W Bush.
 
Last edited:
Terrific controversy. 9/11 would be seen more as a massive air disaster with suspected, but unproven, links to international terrorism. Many, many, people would see the loss of life and property damage the result of over-agressive and incompetent reaction by the US government to an uncertain threat.

I really don't believe that that is all that likely. You neglect the fact that the POD is that only one of the hijacked planes on September 11 was shot down by the US military. The other three planes "survive"--everything else happens that day per OTL. Something tells me that planes crashing into the WTC and the Pentagon and a plane crash-landing in PA would lead to much more than "suspected, but unproven" links to terrorism.
 
At the very least, there are probably less people convinced of 9/11 conspiracy theories, since one of the main arguments is "Why couldn't the government scramble fighters in time?"
 
At the very least, there are probably less people convinced of 9/11 conspiracy theories, since one of the main arguments is "Why couldn't the government scramble fighters in time?"
Well? That still confuses me today. Why couldn't / didn't they?
 
Terrific controversy. 9/11 would be seen more as a massive air disaster with suspected, but unproven, links to international terrorism. Many, many, people would see the loss of life and property damage the result of over-agressive and incompetent reaction by the US government to an uncertain threat. Parallels would be drawn with the Soviet shoot-down of the KAL airliner. From the get go it would be a hot political issue. The Bush administration would attempt to make the case it was responding to a real terrorist threat, but it would have a hard time proving the shoot-downs were absolutely required - since no actual terrorist attack would have occurred. From the start, some Democrats and others in the mainstream media would question the Administration's story. Even if it was proven the planes were hijacked, many people will wonder what the actual intent of the hijackers was. If Osama was smart, he'd keep quiet. Even if he got on Al Jazzera and claimed responsibility for the hijackings and intended suicide attacks, what people would react to is hundreads of dead people shot down by their own government, not thousands killed by terrorists.

THe Administration would not get the degree of international support it got in the early stages. Domestically, it would be sued by the airlines and lawyers representing the passengers. US reaction military would probably be limited to an intensive - unilateral - bombing of potential Al-Qaida targets in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Some would see this as an unjustified attempt to divert attention from the government's own incompetence. No regime change in Afghanistan. No GITMO. Domestically, it would be the source of countless controversy theories and probably lead to an impeachment of George W Bush.

I don't think they'll impeach Bush. The fact that he hasn't been impeached yet in OTL is proof of this. Besides, many people, particularly Bush's conservative base, will buy the story about terrorism, and will oppose any impeachment efforts. I will say this, however: the Democrats will win the 2004 election in this timeline. Most of Bush's popularity comes from his perceived strength on foreign policy and from fear of terrorism. Before 9/11, Bush's approval ratings were sinking due to the struggling economy and opposition to his tax cuts. Without the ability to use 9/11 and the then-popular Iraq War as weapons against the Dems, even massive turnout by the Christian Right won't be able to stop Bush from losing the election.

Oh, and spot on about the conspiracy theories. It should've read like this, however:

Domestically, it would be the source of countless controversy theories (just like in OTL)
:)
 
Well? That still confuses me today. Why couldn't / didn't they?

They did. The problem was that the duty fighter stations were in the wrong places. I've heard (FWIW) that two F-15s were scrambled out of their duty station in Maine and were on full reheat all the way down. They were just in time to see the towers collapse. Apparently one ran out of fuel on the taxiway and the other on final approach and made a dead-stick landing. That's oral history; I've got no confirmation of it. But certainly fighters were scrambled, they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
 
They did. The problem was that the duty fighter stations were in the wrong places. I've heard (FWIW) that two F-15s were scrambled out of their duty station in Maine and were on full reheat all the way down. They were just in time to see the towers collapse. Apparently one ran out of fuel on the taxiway and the other on final approach and made a dead-stick landing. That's oral history; I've got no confirmation of it. But certainly fighters were scrambled, they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

There's also the matter --and much fodder for all the conspiracy theories -- that NORAD was running some wargames on that day including 'Vigilant Guardian' - an annual wargame exercise which required a big chunk of the fighters that should have been on the ground off 'intercepting' Russian planes and whatnot instead. They clued in real fast that 9/11 was real (IIRC, it only took them about 30 seconds to realize that it wasn't part of the wargames) but stuff was in the wrong place for them to do any real good.
 
They did. The problem was that the duty fighter stations were in the wrong places. I've heard (FWIW) that two F-15s were scrambled out of their duty station in Maine and were on full reheat all the way down. They were just in time to see the towers collapse. Apparently one ran out of fuel on the taxiway and the other on final approach and made a dead-stick landing. That's oral history; I've got no confirmation of it. But certainly fighters were scrambled, they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

There's also the matter --and much fodder for all the conspiracy theories -- that NORAD was running some wargames on that day including 'Vigilant Guardian' - an annual wargame exercise which required a big chunk of the fighters that should have been on the ground off 'intercepting' Russian planes and whatnot instead. They clued in real fast that 9/11 was real (IIRC, it only took them about 30 seconds to realize that it wasn't part of the wargames) but stuff was in the wrong place for them to do any real good.
Ah, OK... hadn't heard that stuff before. So basically a really unfortunate coincidence that, on a day they happen to be conducting exercises, then something real elsewhere happens. Damn.

Of course, that could all be part of the conspiracy!!![/nutjob]

Although, would it be possible that the hijackers maybe knew about this exercise, somehow? I don't know...
 
At the very least, there are probably less people convinced of 9/11 conspiracy theories, since one of the main arguments is "Why couldn't the government scramble fighters in time?"

The conspiracy theorists will simply integrate the shoot-down into their arguments.

They'll say that the government shot down an innocent unhijacked plane, to make the attack look worse and stoke up war fever.

That's the beautiful thing about these types of conspiracy theories, any fact can be used as supporting evidence.
 
Terrific controversy. 9/11 would be seen more as a massive air disaster with suspected, but unproven, links to international terrorism. Many, many, people would see the loss of life and property damage the result of over-agressive and incompetent reaction by the US government to an uncertain threat. Parallels would be drawn with the Soviet shoot-down of the KAL airliner. From the get go it would be a hot political issue. The Bush administration would attempt to make the case it was responding to a real terrorist threat, but it would have a hard time proving the shoot-downs were absolutely required - since no actual terrorist attack would have occurred. From the start, some Democrats and others in the mainstream media would question the Administration's story. Even if it was proven the planes were hijacked, many people will wonder what the actual intent of the hijackers was. If Osama was smart, he'd keep quiet. Even if he got on Al Jazzera and claimed responsibility for the hijackings and intended suicide attacks, what people would react to is hundreads of dead people shot down by their own government, not thousands killed by terrorists.

THe Administration would not get the degree of international support it got in the early stages. Domestically, it would be sued by the airlines and lawyers representing the passengers. US reaction military would probably be limited to an intensive - unilateral - bombing of potential Al-Qaida targets in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Some would see this as an unjustified attempt to divert attention from the government's own incompetence. No regime change in Afghanistan. No GITMO. Domestically, it would be the source of countless controversy theories and probably lead to an impeachment of George W Bush.

Ever heard of the Black Box? (Flight Data Recorder) They record everything said in the cockpit. As soon as the tapes are released to the public it would be known that they were hijacked. (and if there's as much controversy as you are implying, they will be released.)
 
I really don't believe that that is all that likely. You neglect the fact that the POD is that only one of the hijacked planes on September 11 was shot down by the US military. The other three planes "survive"--everything else happens that day per OTL. Something tells me that planes crashing into the WTC and the Pentagon and a plane crash-landing in PA would lead to much more than "suspected, but unproven" links to terrorism.

If I misunderstood the POD, then you are completely right. There would be no basic change from what transpired OTL.
 
Ever heard of the Black Box? (Flight Data Recorder) They record everything said in the cockpit. As soon as the tapes are released to the public it would be known that they were hijacked. (and if there's as much controversy as you are implying, they will be released.)

I may have misunderstood the POD, but presuming that all 4 planes were shot down (as I first thought was the point of the POD), then I'm not so sure about the black boxes. If one is of a conspiracy mindset, who would take the word of the NTSB that the black boxes released were the REAL ones, when it is in the interest of the govt to show the shoot downs were justified. Also, a confused and grieving public would always wonder what the intent of the hijackers was even if it was proved the planes were hijacked. The fact would remain that the USAF or Air National Guard killed all those people
 
Ah, OK... hadn't heard that stuff before. So basically a really unfortunate coincidence that, on a day they happen to be conducting exercises, then something real elsewhere happens. Damn.

Of course, that could all be part of the conspiracy!!![/nutjob]

Although, would it be possible that the hijackers maybe knew about this exercise, somehow? I don't know...


Don't laugh--look at some of the 9/11 conspiracy sites on the web --the whole 'how conveeeeenient they were off on some exercise' thing gets a lot of mileage.

As for if they knew -- ~shrugs shoulders~ -- it's not like those exercises are secret (having fighter jets get into battles over US airspace tends to make lots of people freak out if they're not informed, dontcha'know) but from my understanding of the 9/11 terrorists' bios, they weren't mental giants so it could have been just really bad luck.
 
Don't laugh--look at some of the 9/11 conspiracy sites on the web --the whole 'how conveeeeenient they were off on some exercise' thing gets a lot of mileage.
That wouldn't surprise me at all.
As for if they knew -- ~shrugs shoulders~ -- it's not like those exercises are secret (having fighter jets get into battles over US airspace tends to make lots of people freak out if they're not informed, dontcha'know) but from my understanding of the 9/11 terrorists' bios, they weren't mental giants so it could have been just really bad luck.
Heh, makes sense.
 
Top