Had all planes been shot down, prior to hitting any buildings, there could very well have been NO objective proof that hitting a building had ever been the intention. Suspicion, yes, even convincing circumstantial evidence, but no proof. As far as I know, investigators have yet to find written evidence of this plan after the fact, and it's doubtful that arrested suspects who were not on the planes would talk.
The fighter pilots, and pretty much everyone in the chain of command clear up to the President, would currently have their political heads rotting on spikes. Maybe they would see the big picture, and think that the end of their careers was a good trade for thousands of lives, but no one else would care. In real life, even with a fighter on the scene, I think they would have dithered until it was too late (the airliner already over a densely-populated area).
Obviously, a much better case for shooting these planes down could have been made after the first plane hit the WTC. The second plane was over the ocean for a bit, I believe, after the first strike, and might have been successfully shot down without causing deaths on the ground. This might actually have saved one tower. We saw that one tower did collapse without taking the other tower immediately with it. So, had the second tower been undamaged, it might still be there.
The Pentagon hit could have been prevented if everyone had been on the ball enough to take their eyes off of New York and knew where this plane was, which isn't as easy as it sounds. The last plane was taken down by its passengers.
The plausibility of this scenario would depend on a far more detailed analysis of "what if" based on timelines, and I'm not that ambitious.
Current Events » in reply to Yes
Re: Yes
The whole thread (48 posts)
- Flight 11 -- An Escort of Lies
- A little research...
- I don't see a problem in this.
- Corrections
- Call Donahue... I hear he needs some interesting material for his new talk show
- "Blindsided" my foot!
- Re: Flight 11 -- probably a moot point.