Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

At least they tried:Follow

#1 Jun 18 2004 at 5:56 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
This is not a political argument thread.

Just something I found interesting:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040617/ap_on_go_pr_wh/sept_11_bush_cheney_6

Quote:
Cheney, in an underground bunker at the White House, held a series of telephone calls with Bush. He asked the president to decide the rules of engagement for combat planes being scrambled over Washington. Bush said he authorized that hijacked planes be shot down.


Quote:
Cheney's command post received word at 10:02 a.m. that a plane, presumably hijacked, was heading for Washington. It was United flight 93 which crashed in the Pennsylvania countryside at 10:03 a.m. But the White House was unaware of the crash and was told the plane was still bearing down on Washington.


Sometime between 10:10 a.m. and 10:15 a.m., a military aide said the aircraft was 80 miles out and Cheney was asked for authority to shoot down the plane. He issued the order, the commission said. Minutes later, the military aide reported that the plane was 60 miles out and Cheney again was asked for authorization. Again, he said yes.

#2 Jun 18 2004 at 6:06 PM Rating: Default
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
/shug.

I think it's fairly certain that any two people would have made the same decisions.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#3 Jun 18 2004 at 6:14 PM Rating: Decent
Quote:
/shug.

I think it's fairly certain that any two people would have made the same decisions.


Agreed, what a tough thing to live with had those pilots actually gotten off the gound to carry those orders out.
#4 Jun 18 2004 at 6:14 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts

Yeah I agree, just never saw it published before.
#5 Jun 18 2004 at 6:19 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,858 posts
How do we know they didn't carry it out?
#6 Jun 18 2004 at 6:22 PM Rating: Decent
Yep, that last plane was shot down.

That "Let's Roll" BS is just that....BS.

Eb
#7 Jun 18 2004 at 6:25 PM Rating: Default
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
I doubt it. Why would you risk exposure in a stunt like that when no one would fault you for shooting the thing down. With the amount of camcorders around now would you really risk some video coming out or something?

I wouldn't.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#8 Jun 18 2004 at 6:28 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,858 posts
I dunno. They were talking about cell phone calls from family members and what not, but have you ever tried using your cell phone in a plane that's in the air. It doesn't really work since the towers are on the ground and no more than 30 feet tall. There are exceptions to that, but generally they won't work. It wasn't too hard to deflect attention off of the crashed plane either, in that eveyone was mesmerised by the towers. Honestly I don't know if nobody would have been "at fault" for shooting it down. 3 Years ago Bush was a hero. Now he's "taking advantage of the 9-11 incident" for all kinds of things.

Edited, Fri Jun 18 19:29:17 2004 by CrimsonMagician
#9 Jun 18 2004 at 6:29 PM Rating: Default
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
The plane was flying very low. I've seen people use cell phones in planes at normal crusing altitudes and get busted by the FA's. There's just no ROI to anyone to fake something like that.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#10 Jun 18 2004 at 6:33 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,858 posts
I didn't know how low it was flying. If you've seen people use it at normal cruising altitudes, tell me what their service provider is, because I can't even get a f[b][/b]ucking signal at home, let alone 35k feet in the air.

Edited, Fri Jun 18 19:36:50 2004 by CrimsonMagician
#11 Jun 18 2004 at 6:36 PM Rating: Decent
There were several things at the time that made me suspicious of this. I can't remember them now. But it was sort of just a wholistic thing.

There was weirdness surrounding that whole deal. I think that story of them taking over the plane was a distraction from the fact they shot it down. I can't explain why though.

Eb
#12 Jun 18 2004 at 6:39 PM Rating: Default
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Quote:

I didn't know how low it was flying. If you've seen people use it at normal cruising altitudes, tell me what their service provider is, because I can't even get a ******* signal at home, let alone 35k feet in the air.


/shrug Maybe it was a sat phone. I only remember it because the guy was an *** and the FA was telling him he could be arrested.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#13 Jun 18 2004 at 6:47 PM Rating: Decent
By the way, there is NO proof whatsoever that cell phones (or any other electrical devices for that matter) affect airplanes in any way.

Look it up.

Eb
#14 Jun 18 2004 at 6:51 PM Rating: Default
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
They effect how much money they make from approved in flight phone calls :)

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#15 Jun 18 2004 at 6:58 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Quote:

I didn't know how low it was flying. If you've seen people use it at normal cruising altitudes, tell me what their service provider is, because I can't even get a ******* signal at home, let alone 35k feet in the air.


/shrug Maybe it was a sat phone. I only remember it because the guy was an *** and the FA was telling him he could be arrested.


It was a sat phone. It's amazingly difficult to do handoffs from satelites when traveling in an airplane at several hundred miles per hour. It's impossible to do it from ground based cell sites (they just aren't programmed to deal with something moving through coverage sites that fast).

The ability to do handoffs while on a plane was one of the things that the Globalstar system could do that Iridium couldn't. Not that I'm sure of the value of that as the reaction from the aircraft crew shows, but to my knowledge that's the only cell-type system that can handle calls from a plane. All the rest must use radio->groundbase->cell systems.


I'm reasonably sure that they didn't scramble a jet and shoot the plane down 1 minute after they found out about it. Unless someone fudged the times, but why open yourself to that sort of conspiracy when you don't have to? They could have simply said that the plane was shot down over a rural area and no-one would have questioned it at all. Heck. The public was screaming about why the second plane that hit the Towers wasn't shot down, and that was over a major metropolitan area where there likely would have been as many casualites as where it hit anyway. No one would have questioned the decision to shot that last plane down where it crashed if that had been the decision that was made. There's no reason for anyone to have lied here.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#16 Jun 18 2004 at 7:04 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
pickleprince wrote:
By the way, there is NO proof whatsoever that cell phones (or any other electrical devices for that matter) affect airplanes in any way.


This is true (and is probably why that idiot was arguing with the crew, since he undoubtably knew that).

However, that's not the issue. While cell phones don't transmit on frequencies that can interfere with the working of an aircraft, there are frequencies that *can*. Try transmitting on the same frequency that the landing beacons use when on approach sometime (ok, don't since you'll likely crash the plane).

It's not that cell phones normally can interfere with important frequencies. It's that the flight crew is not trained to know what types of transmitters can. By simply requiring that all items that might transmit a signal of any kind are shut off during takeoffs and landings, they elminate the problem without requireing sensitive scanning equipment and technical training for their crews. It's a good and expediate rule, even if it doesn't seem to make sense from the law abiding cell phone user's perspective. You're assuming that everyone using a transmitter of any kind is going to follow FCC regulations and transmit on the correct and legal frequencies. They assume that someday, someone wont, and their job is to prevent that.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#17 Jun 18 2004 at 7:06 PM Rating: Default
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
I'll take your word for it. Your knowledge of cell phones is vastly tuperior to mine, I'm fairly certain.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#18 Jun 20 2004 at 5:16 AM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
Agreed, what a tough thing to live with had those pilots actually gotten off the gound to carry those orders out.


If they had the knowledge as they took off that 2 highjacked planes had just crashed into the twin towers and that this plane was highjacked too with the same intent .....

It is a question of if the pilots would know this or just be carrying out orders. If all you are told is 'shoot down this civil plane full of passengers' It would take a special kind of automoton to carry out that order. If you are told 'this plane has been highjacked and they plan to crash it into the whitehouse' .... It would be a hard decision to make and a tough order to carry out but you could find some solace in that you were making the correct decision.

I could never hurt another human being, let alone kill someone. As such I rely on my countries armies for my protection. I do not like what they do, but I know they are needed to protect us from those that would hurt us. I do not envy their task at all, but I need them and will support them.

And as for Cheney. It takes a special kind of person to accept the responsibility his office requires. It requires an even more unique individual to make the correct choices with all the moral dilemas this brings. Could you do what he does? Day in day out?
#19 Jun 20 2004 at 5:58 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Quote:

If all you are told is 'shoot down this civil plane full of passengers' It would take a special kind of automoton to carry out that order.


It would take any military pilot, basically. Unless spefically told that they were just idly killing civilians who posed no threat, most if not all pilots would shoot it down without a second thought. It's what they're trained to do. They'd trust the coc enough to not worry that it was cold blodded killing for no cause.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 263 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (263)