why was the flight escorted by fighter jets?

[boston bean]

If there was a bomb on board that was timed to go off or if someone were going to set one off, what would the fighter jets be able to do.

[Cronus Protagonist]

1. record, reconnoiter, provide location for debris, survivors, etc.

Did someone really need to tell you that?

[lillypaddle]

4. Nothing wrong

with asking a question.

[EmilyKent]

2. Absolutely nothing.

And they wouldn't have wanted to 'shoot it down' over NYC either.

Window-dressing.

[HubertHeaver]

3. Knock it down if it were to stray off-course.

Assuming the airplane itself is not the target.

[toddwv]

5. The flight was compromised.

If one of the devices went off and caused a crash, I'd think it was a good idea to know exactly where it went down.

[cbdo2007]

6. why not? Imagine if there had been fighter jets escorting the planes that

flew into the WTC. Perhaps they could have stopped them from slamming into it.

[EmilyKent]

7. How?

[emulatorloo]

9. They would not have let them get near the World Trade Center.

[EmilyKent]

14. Well the only way they could have

stopped them would have been to shoot them down. And they'd have to know about quite a bit in advance, or it would have done the same amount of damage.

[JackRiddler]

28. There's no way to say for sure how the alleged hijackers might have responded to the...

defined menu of measures called for in interception protocols. You might guess they'd try the exact same, but it adds an unknown factor to their momentary decision making.

And the inteceptors might have been able to figure out more about what was going on. Interception is an intelligence function. The failure to carry it out according to protocol (in the midst of multiple military exercises that miraculously anticipated each element of the 9/11 events) is one of the most suspicious aspects of 9/11.

[boston bean]

11. I didn't say they shouldn't have been, I just couldn't think of what it is they could prevent.

I thought maybe so they could shoot it down, but how would they know to do that, unless it had already blown up and then the reason for shooting it down (collateral damage)wouldn't have made a differnce.

there was no nefarious reason for my question.

[4 t 4]

23. is this a subtle way of saying

where were the fighter jets on 9-11 ? Because if they were there in the wake of today why weren't they deployed anywhere in the sky's on 9-11 What's the difference between today and then ? Just asking ?

[4 t 4]

25. what it is they could prevent ?, what is the point of

fighter jets ?

[AngryOldDem]

12. Two little facts about that:

1) We didn't know the planes were hjiacked, and 2) we had no reason to think there was any imminent threat that day whatsoever. By your logic ALL planes should then have fighter escorts.

The jet scramble today was unnecessary and just the sort of thing that can stir up public panic. Now if the plane had been going off course, that would be a different story.

[cbdo2007]

16. Again...nobody knows what the plan was. I wasn't notified by the terrorists exactly what

they were going to do, they knew there were explosives on the plane, so why not be "better safe than sorry".

I can just imagine on 9/11 someone like you sitting there in the meeting after the WTC had been attacked saying, "well we don't want to cause any kind of a public panic..." nobody knows what the terrorist plans are before they happen, and if you do know all of their exact intentions then why didn't YOU warn us of all of this ahead of time.

[robdogbucky]

8. Because the Blue Angels were already booked?

Or to provide a really spectacular display when the initial craft exploded, thereby exploding the escorts as well.

You would think with the remote control technology available since the '40s that they would be able to......


Nevermind

[petronius]

10. Actually, I think it was just an opportunity for some aircrew practice

If they'd believed the threat of a crash or a hijacking was anything other than insignificant, they would have diverted it. As for locating the wreckage, the plane was flying over the most populous part of the country - there would have been 1000 calls to 911 before it even finished hitting the ground (not to mention a dense radar network)...

[tabatha]

13. The bomb material had already been taken off the flight.

It was probably a safety precaution.

[boston bean]

15. what could have they done though?

I'm not saying they shouldn't have done it, I just really want to know what they could have done?

[11 Bravo]

17. Shot them down if the aircraft strayed off course, refused to answer radio calls, or ...

ignored other well-established protocols by which a disabled aircraft can identify itself.

[boston bean]

18. ok, I can see that, but they let the plane fly into NYC, what if at the last minute

something bad happened on the plane?

And on a side note, do you think the fed gov't would ever let us know the truth if they shot down a plane full of people?

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

19. The worst 'what if' wins!

WHAT IF an UFO had swooped down and grabbed the fighter jets with their tractor beams and allowed the plane to divert to Wilmington?

OMG!!!!! The HORRORS

[bettyellen]

21. they were ready to react if soemthing happened on the plane, by the time they were over NYC....

they had assurance enough nothing bad was going onup there that it could fly safely over NYC.

[leveymg]

20. Ram the debris in mid-air. "An abundance of caution", indeed. Unless, they thought the

aircrew were also homicidal maniacs. FUBAR has become SOP.

[islandmkl]

22. ohhh....

you were just looking for opinions...

[Stinky The Clown]

24. The airborne version of street theater

[4 t 4]

26. maybe they could do nothing

or maybe they could, it just is something the government should do in a situation like that. After Sep. 11 I guess people think it's the norm to not send fighter's IT'S NOT. Today was the normal

[jeanpalmer]

27. report back

that the plan was successful. :)