Flight 93 - The Three-Minute Gap: What Happened in the Last 180 Seconds?

AirDisaster.com/Philadelphia Daily News ^ | September 16, 2002 | William Bunch

[Sal]

I agree with you about it being totally reasonable to get a nearby civilian plane to confirm. I also agree that there would be no point in doing so if an F-16 had just done a shoot-down. A simple loop by the F-16 to eyeball the wreckage would have done the job.

My question is with the wording of the author of this article--"military in nature". It sounded like BS to me--maybe something to almost subliminally bolster his argument about military involvement. But I'm NOT knowledgeable about planes and didn't want to expose myself to an embarrassing correction (it's happened before) if I'd just called it BS and then got 100 responses that EVERYBODY knows about the white military xxxxxxxs...

Bottom line, I think that if 93 was shot down, it was proper but terribly tragic procedure--notice the complaints that the others were NOT shot down, thus playing both sides of the street. OTOH I don't necessarily think it was shot down, and your point about the white plane recon being unnecessary is a good one. I agree with Fred that we'll probably never really know the answer to this one, but the passengers of 93 are heroes EITHER WAY.

[Hatteras]

Could, perhaps, "military in nature" be a description of a jet as opposed to what a less than knowledgable witness would expect a civilian craft to be such as a Cessna 172? Or maybe, a Learjet at high speed and low altitude could also give an on-looker a false impression? I live in the approach and departure path of Raleigh/Durham International (RDU) and on many occasions small private business jets have beat hasty departures to which visiting friends have questioned if they were military jets.

I can appreciate the questions asked in the article but descriptions such as "military in nature" without a reliable source for such a description is borderline Michael Rivero-esque. In such cases, not always though, chances are that the simplest explanation is probably the most accurate. IMHO

[jjm2111]

good story.

[Semper911]

This whole article is just a nice way of saying the plane was shot down...

I don't care if the plane was shot down or not. We know for certain that the passengers, followed Todd Beamer's charge of "Let's Roll", and they were at least making an attempt to overcome the terrorist bastards. Whether or not they got help from an F-16 or not is irrelevent, imo.

I am satisfied that the government admits that the order to engage was given by the VP, and that there is evidence of the passenger's heroic intentions. This is one of the few occasions that the exact truth doesn't matter.

Those concerned with the 3 seconds need to let it go.

[Lancey Howard]

Great article. My son and I were talking about this flight back on the 9/11 anniversary when CNN showed the timeline of Cheney's day, including the meeting where he gave permission for our fighters to shoot down hijacked passenger jets.

I read the article in the Daily News this morning and went to post it and saw that you beat me to it. You did, however, have a slightly unfair advantage.
Great work, and congratulations.

[Lancey Howard]

bttt

[carenot]

I listened to the tape yesterday.

The controllers asking each other if they had heard the screaming, they all said yes.

Then you could hear from the plane something about a bomb and the controllers asking each other if they had heard that.

Then controllers talking about the plane climbing and then turning East.

Then asking each other if they had seen a "puff of smoke", they agreed they had.

Then the tape cut off.

[Timesink]

late night bump

[PFKEY]

and their deserving a National Monument.

I had never thought of that.

If ever one was deserved.

[PFKEY]

But, then I wouldn't be surprised if another story comes out later about another Hero of 9-11, who did his very distasteful duty.

Agreed, He would be a hero too.

[PFKEY]

I agree with you about it being totally reasonable to get a nearby civilian plane to confirm. I also agree that there would be no point in doing so if an F-16 had just done a shoot-down. A simple loop by the F-16 to eyeball the wreckage would have done the job.

Am I missing something here?

I don't see civil aviation authorities asking "F-15 pilot that just shot down that commercial airliner, please confinm kill. We have lost FLT93 on radar."

[Jeff Head]

I agree.

I you haven't already, please SIGN THE PETITION and pass the word.

[Sal]

I don't see civil aviation authorities asking "F-15 pilot that just shot down that commercial airliner, please confinm kill. We have lost FLT93 on radar."

Good point. I was thinking of it in terms of all involved being on the same side--stopping the terrorists--which all no doubt were. But the AF wouldn't necessarily have alerted the civil aviation authorities that they were about to shoot down the airliner, or that they just had. OTOH they wouldn't have needed to alert the civil aviation authorities of their presence on the scene as the cva would have seen F-16 on radar if there was an F-16. I guess they'd be inclined to look for confirmation in either case. There are still NO villains here, only tragic heroes.

[Sal]

Could be I guess.