OT : A fact about 911 flight 93 movie and the US airforce

[emenance]

Believe it or not I heard some comments about the new movie coming out about 911 and flight 93. In the movie we will see that the US Air force had no planes armed with missles to shoot down flight 93 ........yes just about the whole east coast.....non armed. In the movie the dispather will scramble the jets and beg for permission to fly the jets into 747 flight 93 that crashed in Pennsylvania. The closest place was mentioned but I forget where that was I wana say Texas or Georgia :(

 

I was shocked to hear this!!!!!!

[GGTharos]

And that's why it's a movie.

[Mobius1]

That doesn't sound quite right. I was at the 9/11 portion of the American History Museum at the Smithsonian in Washington D.C. and there was a story about F-16 pilots that were scrambled that day. Doesn't really make sense to scramble them unarmed.

[emenance]

Well its not really a movie , the director talked to all of the families of 911 and got there permission to do a true to the day movie.

 

THAT means the all the things we will see will be accurate as possible down to what the victims were wearing on the plane!!!! Its the only way the Director would do it and the family agreed so everyone is going for complete accuracy in this film. Ofcourse what the military says is questionable but this has raised some dicussion already.

[Pilotasso]

I would be very carefull into taking seriously everything thats going to be on that movie. There may be some classifyed info that will probably have something else to fill in the gap.

[504 Wolverine]

Doesn't really make sense to scramble them unarmed.

 

I agree. Even if they were not armed with missiles they still have a cannon and it is'nt like it was a fast manouvering fighter they were going to deal with.

[nscode]

If they were not armed with missiles, why would they have ammo in guns? That needs to be loaded too...

[Guest IguanaKing]

Prior to 9-11, US military aircraft were usually not armed with live ordnance when they were based in populated areas. Unfortunately, the public had demanded that armed aircraft not be allowed to regularly fly over their neighborhoods. The USAFA even had to do some of its flight training through private flying clubs because of civilian complaints about overflights. Just to clear something up, the aircraft that were scrambled DID NOT leave the ground unarmed. The problem was that their departure was delayed due to the fact that they had to be armed.

 

This isn't the case anymore though. There is now constant AWACS coverage and armed CAP over the entire US. In addition to that, there are also, always, at least a flight of fully armed and fueled aircraft waiting on the ground.

[hitman]

Kind of like closing the barn door after the horses have fled.

[169th_Crusty]

Prior to 9-11, US military aircraft were usually not armed with live ordnance when they were based in populated areas. Unfortunately, the public had demanded that armed aircraft not be allowed to regularly fly over their neighborhoods. The USAFA even had to do some of its flight training through private flying clubs because of civilian complaints about overflights. Just to clear something up, the aircraft that were scrambled DID NOT leave the ground unarmed. The problem was that their departure was delayed due to the fact that they had to be armed.

 

This isn't the case anymore though. There is now constant AWACS coverage and armed CAP over the entire US. In addition to that, there are also, always, at least a flight of fully armed and fueled aircraft waiting on the ground.

 

We`re not talking "regularly scheduled" training flights here but an alert

aircraft in the coastal areas - just in case something popped up in the ADIZ.

[Guest IguanaKing]

I know that, and its an unfortunate fact. We were sleeping, and relying on our ability to pick up threats that may enter our ADIZ from distances that would allow us to arm our aircraft. An attack from within was never part of the battle-plan. On the training flight subject, its not so much of a problem anymore as people's priorities have changed. Most people feel safer when they hear a flight of Vipers overhead now, as opposed to the "damn those noisy Air Force planes!!!!" attitude they had before. ;)

[upyr1]

Sad any one had the attitude of "damn those noisy Air Force planes!!!!"

I'm for one thankful we have folks putting on unforms defending the nation.

[Guest IguanaKing]

I'm with you, I've always felt the same. Unfortunately, so many of our population viewed the AF and other military aviation as just a bunch of guys running wild through the skies with the sole purpose of disturbing their "quite time." :(

[hitman]

I liked it when my quiet time was disturbed. Colorado Springs, Dyess AFB in Abilene, Tx, JRB Ft. Worth (aka Carswell) Hill AFB, when I was living in Tooele, Ut...even tho that was a way off still got to see the -16's on the 4th July...bunch of whiners.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Me too. I love it when I can feel the crackle of the burners in my chest, and when I hear that deafening ripping roar from 140th Vipers as they streak overhead daily. They are up there watching over us all...these guys all have families too...they're not just a bunch of cowboys. The engines are loud due to physics, not because these guys were ever trying to piss anybody off.

[emenance]

I would be very carefull into taking seriously everything thats going to be on that movie. There may be some classifyed info that will probably have something else to fill in the gap.

 

Negative

 

I have watched closely the famlies debate. Its not going to be a movie, no one would have that. its going to be a reenactment of what happened as close as anyone can passionatly display.

 

I live in the midwest. Dont discount my feelings.

 

This is going to be a passionate display of what happened. No one wants it any other way .

[Guest IguanaKing]

As long as passion doesn't override facts...and so far, from what I have read, it doesn't.

 

Not sure if Pilotasso is alluding to conspiracy-theories or not.

[zoot]

Pay attention

 

any CN or CVN within the norfolk or even newprort news area could have had 14s or better armed and flying caps in the area within 30 minutes if they [the carriers] were deployed and not "in port" status. the whole situation was unique because no one anticipated it.

 

fool me once shame on me

 

fool me twice here come the tactical nukes

 

"glass parking lots for everyone":drink:

 

I would also be very careful about what you see in the movie, those people had more guts than I can imagine [imagine the situation-the real situation-for just a moment-i dont know if I could do what they did ], but that doesnt mean hollywood wont take liberties with the details. after all that is they're job = to dramatize things like this.

 

IMHO its too soon for a movie like this.

 

2 cents done

[nscode]

Me too. I love it when I can feel the crackle of the burners in my chest, and when I hear that deafening ripping roar from 140th Vipers as they streak overhead daily. They are up there watching over us all...these guys all have families too...they're not just a bunch of cowboys. The engines are loud due to physics, not because these guys were ever trying to piss anybody off.

 

I've heared an F-16 on AB once in Grece... man, if you didn't hear a MiG-21, you didn't hear nottin' ;)

[Guest IguanaKing]

Heh, I've heard possibly the loudest aircraft on Earth, the F-106. :D

[Pilotasso]

As long as passion doesn't override facts...and so far, from what I have read, it doesn't.

 

Not sure if Pilotasso is alluding to conspiracy-theories or not.

 

Not conspiracies. I do not wish to bash anyone on the administration this time. ;)

 

Its just sometimes the facts are not fully explained and are left in the limbo. The US goverment did little to clarify what hapened and Im almost sure they have more elements to what has hapened than they let us know. Not even families know everything what hapened. The fact that some passengers phoned home describing what was going on, the truth is that those were just snapshots of the whole picture. Theres alot of freedom to speculate what had realy brought down the aircraft. Was it a bomb? Was it something else?

Dunno, but then I ask you, were there any independent reports freed to the public. Did they expose the indications of use of explosives inside the aircraft or from outside, or if simply the aircraft was oversped to desintegration by the those on controll?

 

Im my view anything could have hapened including a successfull mutiny on board but wich left the aricraft uncontrolable.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Oh...I thought you were referring to the military response. The facts there are pretty well-known already. You have a good point about what might have actually brought the plane down though. But I tend to doubt it was a bomb.

[Pilotasso]

SO far, the documentaries I saw favour the theory of the usage of body strapped bomb wich one of the terrorists had and made explode after realising the passengers were rebelling. It could have been a fake bomb even, we just dont know.

[Cobra360]

The crash site of flight 93 was supposedly spread out over a mile of so. Indicating that the plane started to disintergrate rather than hit the ground in a crash which would have left a smaller crash site even if the plane hit the ground at a shallow angle.

[Pilotasso]

Well it doesnt mean that it wasnt oversped to diesintegration like I said.

And although I dont specificaly support the military theory, any internal or external explosion could have donne that as well.

 

Why arent any aircraft specialists independent report out there yet? is there?