Support NeoGAF

[Lucky Forward]

Kamikaze: F-16 pilots planned to ram Flight 93

When the pilots of the 121st Fighter Squadron of the D.C. Air National Guard got the order to intercept Flight 93, the hijacked jet speeding toward the nation's capital, they figured there was a decent chance they would not come back alive.

That's because the F-16 jets they were rushing to get airborne were largely unarmed, recalls one of the pilots, then-Lt. Heather Penney, leaving them one option to take out the wayward plane: a kamikaze mission.

"We wouldn’t be shooting it down. We would be ramming the aircraft, because we didn’t have weapons on board to be able to shoot the airplane down," Penney told C-SPAN.

In the days before Sept. 11, there were no armed aircraft standing guard in Washington, D.C., ready to scramble at the first sign of trouble.

And with a Boeing 757 aircraft speeding in the direction of Washington, D.C., Penney and her commanding officer, Col. Marc Sasseville, couldn't wait the dozens of minutes it was going to take to properly arm their respective jets.

"It was decided that Sass and I would take off first, even though we knew we would end up having to take off before our aircraft were armed," Penney, among the first generation of American female fighter pilots, said to C-SPAN.

Penney said each jet had 105 lead-nosed bullets on board, but little more.

"As we were putting on our flight gear … Sass looked at me and said, 'I'll ram the cockpit.' And I had made the decision that I would take the tail off the aircraft," Penney recalled.

Both pilots thought about whether they would have enough time to eject before impact.

"I was hoping to do both at the same time," Sasseville told the Washington Post. "It probably wasn’t going to work, but that’s what I was hoping."

Penney, a rookie fight pilot, worried about missing her target.

"You only got one chance. You don’t want to eject and then miss. You’ve got to be able to stick with it the whole way," she said.

The pilots chose their impact spots in order to minimize the debris field on the ground. A plane with no nose and no tail would likely fall straight out of the sky, its forward momentum halted, Penney said.

“The people on Flight 93 were heroes, but they were going to die no matter what," she said. "My concern was how do I minimize collateral damage on the ground."

As it turned out, Sasseville and Penney never intercepted Flight 93. The passengers of that doomed plane made sure they didn't have to.

 

[Parallax Scroll]

Damn.

 

[JoeMartin]

And an unfortunate necessity it would have been. No one could have ordered them to do it, but absolutely selfless volunteers like them are the kind of people we need in service to this country. Cheers to both of them.

 

[UFRA]

Wow, never knew about this.

 

[MIMIC]

“The people on Flight 93 were heroes, but they were going to die no matter what," she said. "My concern was how do I minimize collateral damage on the ground."

Startling.

 

[Clydefrog]

“The people on Flight 93 were heroes, but they were going to die no matter what," she said. "My concern was how do I minimize collateral damage on the ground."

Damn.

In the days before Sept. 11, there were no armed aircraft standing guard in Washington, D.C., ready to scramble at the first sign of trouble.

I bet that has changed now.

 

[coldvein]

they don't have fighters just sitting on the ground all strapped with missiles ready to go and shit? this is shocking, to me.

edit: incredibly brave people and all that .. but what if we actually needed armed fighter jets like RIGHT NOW? they really have to wait like ten minutes to arm it up? that's wack.

 

[Grimm Fandango]

That one flight was the one planned for the Pentagon? How far were the pilots from there?

 

[Hootie]

they don't have fighters just sitting on the ground all strapped with missiles ready to go and shit? this is shocking, to me.

I'm sure they do nowadays

 

[Guevara]

110 bajillion dollars a year on defense and we scramble unarmed jets the one time we need them.

 

[ThatCrazyGuy]

Yea, this is weird they wouldn't be ready and armed? Safety issue?

 

[Guerrillas in the Mist]

they don't have fighters just sitting on the ground all strapped with missiles ready to go and shit? this is shocking, to me.

Not before 9/11. I'd imagine the only ready fighters stationed in North America at that time would be ones at stations which would have been be likely spots for Soviet air attack back in the day.

 

[Leunam]

That one flight was the one planned for the Pentagon? How far were the pilots from there?

Here's a handy timeline:

Flight 93 was believed to be heading towards the White House.

 

[Joel Was Right]

What was the point of having jets 'on standby' around DC if they are unarmed?

 

[demon]

Fuckin heroes. Yeah they didn't carry it out, but you know they would've. Crazy.

 

[coldvein]

110 bajillion dollars a year on defense and we scramble unarmed jets the one time we need them.

no shit. wtf?

 

[SpectreFire]

they don't have fighters just sitting on the ground all strapped with missiles ready to go and shit? this is shocking, to me.

edit: incredibly brave people and all that .. but what if we actually needed armed fighter jets like RIGHT NOW? they really have to wait like ten minutes to arm it up? that's wack.

Yeah. Near other cities I can understand, but Washington DC? I'd always figure the Airforce would have some fully armed fighters on 24/7 standby.

 

[JoeMartin]

Believe it or not we don't leave armed munitions lying around. Getting that stuff combat ready is a mountain of red tape and physical work on the missile itself, especially state side.

And it's not like there's anyone to blame. We not exactly prepping for air to air combat in our own air space, which pilot was planning to shoot down a civilian airliner that morning?

 

[coldvein]

the amount of money we all spend on national defense, we should have auto-training destructo lasers cutting any possible air threats into pieces.

 

[Leunam]

What was the point of having jets 'on standby' around DC if they are unarmed?

Safety issue is my first guess. By stand-by I assume they mean fueled and with pilots on call.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

they don't have fighters just sitting on the ground all strapped with missiles ready to go and shit? this is shocking, to me.

edit: incredibly brave people and all that .. but what if we actually needed armed fighter jets like RIGHT NOW? they really have to wait like ten minutes to arm it up? that's wack.

To be fair, the US hasn't had to deal with a direct invasion on the mainland in a very long time. War of 1812 the last time, maybe? Of course there is Pearl Harbor, but that was a territory and not on the mainland.

Probably higher risk to have the bombs constantly on the planes compared to the actual benefit you would get from doing that.

 

[LQX]

I'm pretty sure I heard of this in either a documentary or on a news piece like 60 Minutes.

 

[3N16MA]

That one flight was the one planned for the Pentagon? How far were the pilots from there?

Flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania. It was most likely intended to hit the U.S. Capitol or the White House.

 

[Grimm Fandango]

Here's a handy timeline:

http://i.imgur.com/CClAy.jpg

Flight 93 was believed to be heading towards the White House.

Wow I completely forgot one did crash into the Pentagon. Only remembered the two into the towers and the one passengers brought down.

 

[coldvein]

To be fair, the US hasn't had to deal with a direct invasion on the mainland in a very long time. War of 1812 the last time, maybe? Of course there is Pearl Harbor, but that was a territory and not on the mainland.

Probably higher risk to have the bombs constantly on the planes compared to the actual benefit you would get from doing that.

your reasoning good, i just don't feel that it's right. we don't all know about what kind of military installations there are around DC, exactly where they are, etc.. but one of them should be CODE BLACK DESTROY SHIT at the drop of a hat level, IMO.

 

[GK86]

That is shocking to read. I always assumed there were arms jets ready to go when shit hit the fan.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

That's pretty sad. Even if the passengers managed to take the plane over from the hijackers the military would've killed them anyway.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Not before 9/11. I'd imagine the only ready fighters stationed in North America at that time would be ones at stations which would have been be likely spots for Soviet air attack back in the day.

By and large yes, but US Figher Defense was something drawndown even during the cold war as bombers became less of the main threat. Before that though we had NUCLEAR SAMs deployed. That said the last thing like what happened (in the rogue aircraft sense )was when that golfer Casey I think and the others on his plane all died from some oxygen screwup and it just drifted on auto till crashing in a field. Planes did shadow it and had authority from Clinton to down it if they had too. Those were armed, but we all have to recall no one had any idea how many planes were out there and/or headed to DC.

 

[HammerOfThor]

This explains a question I had earlier, about how fighter's would stop a threat like this. Its sad that no matter what people would have to die.


On the topic of 9/11, is there a general theory(or fact) as to how the terrorists actually hijacked the plane? I was too young to remember any of the initial coverage for the first few years.

 

[way more]

What was the point of having jets 'on standby' around DC if they are unarmed?

Jet's are primarily used for air-to-air combat and the US can detect an enemy plane hours before it's arrival. Within that time I'm sure they could arm themselves or find the appropriate planes from another base.

On the topic of 9/11, is there a general theory(or fact) as to how the terrorists actually hijacked the plane? I was too young to remember any of the initial coverage for the first few years.

They used box cutters and threatened to stab anyone. Then they took over the cockpit which was not secure back then.

 

[TheSeks]

they don't have fighters just sitting on the ground all strapped with missiles ready to go and shit? this is shocking, to me.

Security issues, I take it. Someone can get into base, take the plane and cause damage if they were armed and ready 24/7.

Sure that's changed now a days, but I think it's reasonable to expect them to unarm a weapon just like a gun.

On the topic of 9/11, is there a general theory(or fact) as to how the terrorists actually hijacked the plane?

Killed the pilots I think.

 

[triplestation]

What if there was a plane created 3x more massive than a Boeing 767 that had a large magnet attached to the bottom? Maybe something like this will be possible in the future.

 

[BocoDragon]

I think it's very likely they shot that plane down. It's a "9/11 conspiracy" that I actually find plausible. (but I'm not talking inside job anything so I don't think it belongs in that thread)

They were scrambled in the air, aware of the threat..... and then they waited for the passengers to play hero and sacrifice their lives to take the plane down? Unlikely. The US killing their own civillians would be a can of worms so they just implied the story of heroic self-sacrificing civilian passengers. A much better story.

Obviously no one will ever know, and I certainly don't claim to.

 

[NekoFever]

What was the point of having jets 'on standby' around DC if they are unarmed?

Usually if there's an airspace violation it's enough to harass the invading aircraft and make a show of strength. Pre-9/11 defence was largely based on the assumption that any attackers would be intending to survive the attack, after all.

 

[speculawyer]

“The people on Flight 93 were heroes, but they were going to die no matter what," she said. "My concern was how do I minimize collateral damage on the ground."

Those heroes on Flight 93 effectively did minimize collateral damage on the ground by acting when the did instead of waiting until closer to urban zones.

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

This explains a question I had earlier, about how fighter's would stop a threat like this. Its sad that no matter what people would have to die.


On the topic of 9/11, is there a general theory(or fact) as to how the terrorists actually hijacked the plane? I was too young to remember any of the initial coverage for the first few years.

They hijacked the plane with box cutters and killed some passengers and flight crew. They had previously trained to learn how to fly a plane, well enough for their purposes. We were just completely unprepared. Additionally, planes had been hijacked before but the expectation was that they would make demands and land the plane somewhere in exchange for freeing hostages. The standard procedure was to allow them to take control of the plane and stall them until the plane was safely landed. Even in a hijacking scenario, no one was prepared for them to fly the plane into a target.

 

[coldvein]

What if there was a plane created 3x more massive than a Boeing 767 that had a large magnet attached to the bottom? Maybe something like this will be possible in the future.

^_____________________________________^

 

[triplestation]

^_____________________________________^

:3333333333333333333333333333333

 

[JoeMartin]

That's pretty sad. Even if the passengers managed to take the plane over from the hijackers the military would've killed them anyway.

And after what had already happened you'd give them the benefit of the doubt? It's a shitty choice to have to make either way, but being painfully aware of the intended purpose of the plane it was beyond an acceptable risk at that point.

 

[Krakatoa]

I guess they would have ejected just before impact.

 

[BocoDragon]

They used box cutters and threatened to stab anyone. Then they took over the cockpit which was not secure back then.

My first reaction after 9/11 was "me and a couple buddies could have done this".

I was never quite sure why terrorism was assumed to cost a lot, take a lot to plan, or needed any kind of chain of command or anything. Box cutters are cheap.

 

[ConfusingJazz]

This explains a question I had earlier, about how fighter's would stop a threat like this. Its sad that no matter what people would have to die.


On the topic of 9/11, is there a general theory(or fact) as to how the terrorists actually hijacked the plane? I was too young to remember any of the initial coverage for the first few years.

Box cutter to stab a flight attendant, tie the rest of the attendants up, kill the pilots, threaten the passengers with a bomb.

United 93 found out through plane phones that they were fucked, and charged with a meal cart as a battering ram, and successfully got in the cock pit. However, in the struggle, the plane went down.

 

[coldvein]

My first reaction after 9/11 was "me and a couple buddies could have done this".

I was never quite sure why terrorism was assumed to cost a lot, take a lot to plan, or needed any kind of chain of command or anything. Box cutters are cheap.

it doesn't. it's some really DIY kinda shit, and nobody is able to pull it off on a big level in america post 9/11. go homeland security. or whoever.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

They hijacked the plane with box cutters and killed some passengers and flight crew. They had previously trained to learn how to fly a plane, well enough for their purposes. We were just completely unprepared. Additionally, planes had been hijacked before but the expectation was that they would make demands and land the plane somewhere in exchange for freeing hostages. The standard procedure was to allow them to take control of the plane and stall them until the plane was safely landed. Even in a hijacking scenario, no one was prepared for them to fly the plane into a target.

Keep in mind also that most of the hijackers thought it was going to be a normal highjacking with a landing and demands not what happened.

 

[Le-mo]

That's pretty sad. Even if the passengers managed to take the plane over from the hijackers the military would've killed them anyway.

Pretty sure if they managed to take back the plane they could radio the military to call off the strike.

 

[TheSeks]

Those heroes on Flight 93 effectively did minimize collateral damage on the ground by acting when the did instead of waiting until closer to urban zones.

Yes, but the pilots didn't know they were going to crash in the countryside. Hindsight 20/20 and all that.

 

[BocoDragon]

Keep in mind also that most of the hijackers thought it was going to be a normal highjacking with a landing and demands not what happened.

Yeah we expected some 70s-style classic terrorism. Fly the plane to asylum in Libya or wherever and ransom the passengers for the release of political prisoners

 

[Drkirby]

That one flight was the one planned for the Pentagon? How far were the pilots from there?

No, that was the flight that was supposed to take out the Congress, though they had some really poor planing, in how Congress was out that day. The whole attack was pretty poorly done, I would almost chalk up the fact the twin towers went down as an unfortunate fluke.

 

[Baron Aloha]

Anyone else find it a bit strange that we are hearing this 10 years later? What about the discussions that Bush's crew had about whether or not they should order the plane shot down? Why even have those discussions if it wasn't possible to begin with?

Call me crazy/paranoid/whatever but in the back of my mind I'll always suspect that they shot the plane down (and Rummy saying it was shot down didn't help).

The people on the plane were heroes though, no matter what.

 

[coldvein]

the men on 93, their actions on that day were certainly heroic. i don't know if i'd call them heroes, but they were definitely badasses.