Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

‘We May Have to Shoot Down This Aircraft’

politico.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 211 posts

Re: ‘We May Have to Shoot Down This Aircraft’

#111

Post by [deleted] »

jacobush wrote: post #99
throwbrow wrote: post #41

I was riding the 7 train from Astoria, Queens, to my job at the big Citigroup tower in Long Island City. It was after the first plane hit and, with the 7 being an outdoor subway line with a great view of the Manhattan skyline, we in the first car could see the gaping hole and smoke billowing. I assumed it was an accident. When I got to work I said dismissively to colleagues, “That must be the dumbest pilot ever.” We…

I was working on a large airport in Europe, on-site. We got notice that US-bound planes were diverted to turn back over the Atlantic and come back to us. Then the news started trickling in. I immediately thought "they are going to hit Iraq for this".

[deleted]

Re: ‘We May Have to Shoot Down This Aircraft’

#112

Post by philwelch »

paxys wrote: post #58
plutonorm wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, it seems a little convenient that they didn't have to shoot the plane down. Do we have any evidence that they didn't shoot the plane down and then construct the passengers saving the day story after the fact?

So there's a conspiracy involving every level of the US government, the US Air Force, D.C. Air National Guard, the NTSB and possibly more, over...something that would be completely acceptable to do under the circumstances?

Plus the family members of passengers whose last conversations with their loved ones ended with some variation of, "we're going to try and rush the cockpit, I have to go".

Not only that, but the conspiracy involves the military trying to convince everyone that they were completely unprepared. "We didn't shoot down an airliner, even though that's what anybody with sense would have done in that situation, because our fighters didn't have missiles" doesn't sound like a cover story that inspires trust.

Re: ‘We May Have to Shoot Down This Aircraft’

#113

Post by DMcVeigh »

Gustomaximus wrote: post #86
Gaelan wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would they? It'd be a sad story, but I can't imagine anyone would see the US's actions there as unjustified.

I don't think this is a conspiracy at all. But I could see people having this conversation if they did shoot it down. Maybe to make the victim's family feel better. To avoid lawsuits. Avoid repercussion if they were wrong. Avoid repercussion if we found later this plane was going to hit a building that would have little loss of life vs passenger count. There could be rationale there if people made a panicked decision…

"hit a building that would have little loss of life vs passenger count"

You seem to imply that if the plane hits a building all the passengers survive?

Re: ‘We May Have to Shoot Down This Aircraft’

#114

Post by isostatic »

dredmorbius wrote: post #59
rmason wrote: post #54

I was headed downtown to my startup's office when I heard a radio newscast. I don't even know why I had my radio on as it was a pretty short drive. I immediately went in and started checking the web. It gave me a little more information. Fifteen minutes later when my developer showed up you couldn't bring up any news site on the web. Guy from across the hall had a TV and he invited all of us in the building to watch.…

A lot of the Web wasn't geared for high load. Information was developing so rapidly that online was really the only effective place to go for information (such as it was -- there was rampant speculation). Many sites rapidly slimmed down their services and offered lightweight versions. A few lighter-weight sites remained up, notably, at the time, Slashdot. NPR refers to 9/11 as the event which made clear that the netw…

Slashdot was absolutely essential that day, seemingly the only site that was up

Re: ‘We May Have to Shoot Down This Aircraft’

#115

Post by isostatic »

dghughes wrote: post #3

I remember working that day (a cool and sunny Tuesday) and each place I went to I asked them to turn on the TV. Nobody was interested in turning on the TV or even changing the channel to any news channel. What I thought had happened was a large aircraft accidentally ran into the Empire State building again like had happened many years ago.

On July 7th 2005 I was on a bbc engineering course in a non-disclosable secret nuclear bunker in the Cotswolds, when my phone started ringing (on vibrate). Multiple times.

Eventually got a text message saying the London underground was under attack and was I ok. It was only then I asked for the tv to be put on.

The 00s were an eventful time. There’s now more time passed since the London attacks and the ita bombing campaigns in Warrington and Manchester. Still not long before the GFA is cancelled and we return to those days.

Re: ‘We May Have to Shoot Down This Aircraft’

#116

Post by philwelch »

Gustomaximus wrote: post #86
Gaelan wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would they? It'd be a sad story, but I can't imagine anyone would see the US's actions there as unjustified.

I don't think this is a conspiracy at all. But I could see people having this conversation if they did shoot it down. Maybe to make the victim's family feel better. To avoid lawsuits. Avoid repercussion if they were wrong. Avoid repercussion if we found later this plane was going to hit a building that would have little loss of life vs passenger count. There could be rationale there if people made a panicked decision…

In the atmosphere after 9/11, and especially before Iraq, it was unlikely if not unthinkable that there would be "lawsuits" or "repercussions" for the government. The reason Flight 93 ended the way it did was because every American who witnessed or heard about what happened in New York that morning fundamentally understood that a hijacked aircraft was no longer a hostage situation, but rather a weapon of mass murder. Nobody would have questioned the decision, just as virtually nobody questioned the other decisions made by the US government in the initial months after the attack.

Re: ‘We May Have to Shoot Down This Aircraft’

#117

Post by Teknoman117 »

dghughes wrote: post #3

I remember working that day (a cool and sunny Tuesday) and each place I went to I asked them to turn on the TV. Nobody was interested in turning on the TV or even changing the channel to any news channel. What I thought had happened was a large aircraft accidentally ran into the Empire State building again like had happened many years ago.

I was in 3rd grade on 9/11. I remember walking into class from the bus and a classmate saying that a plane hit a building in New York.

Being 8 I didn't really have an idea what that meant, but when they started sending us all home not a half hour after arriving at school we all knew something bad was happening, they were following the same procedure as when they had advanced warning of dangerous weather (Illinois). My dad had just got home from long business trip the night before and was taking the day off and my mom was a stay at home mom. Both were sleeping in and were blissfully ignorant of the whole thing until I got back. We watched the news for hours after that, and it may have been one of the first times I'd heard about 'War.'

Re: ‘We May Have to Shoot Down This Aircraft’

#118

Post by dTal »

philwelch wrote: post #22
mabbo wrote: post #7

> We didn’t have [missiles] on board to shoot the airplane down. As we were putting on our flight gear in the life support shop, Sass looked at me and said, “I’ll ram the cockpit.” I made the decision I would take the tail off the aircraft > I genuinely believed that was going to be the last time I took off. If we did it right, this would be it. - Lt. Heather “Lucky” Penney That leaves me just speechless and chilled.…

What's also chilling, when you think about it a little more, is that a group of civilian passengers made more or less the same decision, and that's the reason these fighter pilots survived the day .

There's no evidence the passengers suicided. They were attempting to save themselves. There was a struggle in the cockpit, and the aircraft crashed. It may even have been that the terrorists crashed the plane when they realized they weren't going to make it to their target.

This meme is unhealthy, and disrepectful to the fallen.

Re: ‘We May Have to Shoot Down This Aircraft’

#119

Post by nesadi »

jacquesm wrote: post #79
throwbrow wrote: post #41

I was riding the 7 train from Astoria, Queens, to my job at the big Citigroup tower in Long Island City. It was after the first plane hit and, with the 7 being an outdoor subway line with a great view of the Manhattan skyline, we in the first car could see the gaping hole and smoke billowing. I assumed it was an accident. When I got to work I said dismissively to colleagues, “That must be the dumbest pilot ever.” We…

> I thought nothing would ever be the same. And nothing ever was. Plenty of stupid political decisions today , and untold billions of wasted money some of which is spent today are a direct consequence of 9/11.

By every measure, the terrorists accomplished their goals and won.

Re: ‘We May Have to Shoot Down This Aircraft’

#120

Post by rkagerer »

dredmorbius wrote: post #64
paxys wrote: post #60

So weird to see such a detailed article on the critical moments after the attack which basically doesn't even mention the President.

The article is a book exerpt, essentially a chapter of a larger work. The chapter addressing the President, then in Florida, has been posted elsewhere in this thread, it's here: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/were-the-onl...

We got this radio request - Code Alpha - a high priority incoming aircraft. It wanted 150,000 pounds of gas, 40 gallons of coffee, 70 box lunches, and 25 pounds of bananas. It wouldn’t identify itself. It was clearly a big plane. It didn’t take us long to figure out that the Code Alpha was Air Force One.
Post reply on HN