top | item 28493802

(no title)

JamilD | 4 years ago

Not quite an answer to your question, but in the 60s and 70s hijackings were quite common (86 hijackings in 1969) and weren’t seen in the way they are now. The common understanding was that the hijackers wanted to re-route the plane somewhere else, and that everyone would end up alive but inconvenienced.

It’s also one reason why only the passengers in United 93 fought back; the idea of a plane as a missile wasn’t widely understood or considered until the planes hit the twin towers. Fighter jets were not even under consideration to be mobilized until United 93.

discuss

order

kolanos|4 years ago

> It’s also one reason why only the passengers in United 93 fought back; the idea of a plane as a missile wasn’t widely understood or considered until the planes hit the twin towers. Fighter jets were not even under consideration to be mobilized until United 93.

Sadly this is mostly a myth. It is a little known fact that there were five separate U.S. military war games being run simultaneously with 9/11 and three of them involved airliner hijacking scenarios, including flying airplanes into buildings. Worse, these war games involved simulated inputs into NORAD and FAA radar systems, resulting in mass confusion. There is an excellent documentary that covers these war games, including actual NORAD, FAA and EADS audio [0].

[0]: https://www.corbettreport.com/911wargames/

jazzyjackson|4 years ago

I thought I remembered the plot to the 1996 film “executive decision” as being a debate whether to shoot the passenger jet out of the sky because the plane was going to be used as a missile, but i just read the plot again and they were going to detonate a nerve agent bomb on board the plane while over a us city, so, similar but not quite a prediction of the predicament.

JamilD|4 years ago

I just started watching the historical footage from CNN; it's interesting to hear the commentary in between when the first and second planes hit the tower.

"Was the plane having any difficulty flying?" "Yes, it seemed to be rocking back and forth" "Was this a navigational error?"

An announcement in the South Tower immediately after the crash instructed people to stay in their offices.

Even after the second tower was hit, the immediate reaction was that it was a second explosion in the North Tower caused by the fuselage of the plane.

4 minutes after the second plane hit, when it was clear that two planes were involved: "was it possible a navigational error directed two planes into the World Trade Center?"

It's incredible to think just how much our attitude and perspectives changed after realizing what exactly had happened.

trothamel|4 years ago

(Spoilers)

The end of Tom Clancy's 1994 book "Debt of Honor" featured a 747 being crashed into the Capital, which is about as close as fiction gets.

mlcrypto|4 years ago

Wow 86 hijackings and nobody in intelligence could ever conceive of how that could go horribly wrong

rtkwe|4 years ago

Most people survived them though so there wasn't a huge reason to do anything particularly drastic, using planes as a suicide missile was basically entirely new. Even on the day of there was speculation about why the planes 'messed up' and flew into the WTC buildings which shows just how unusual it was. Most hijackings were essentially mass kidnappings for ransom to get money, release prisoners or get promises of policy changes and ended with a negotiation or storming the plane.