But in the interests of keeping an open mind, I surfed over to rense to see if I could find anything compelling.

Mostly it was just a list of unsupported accusations, but there was a list of links. So off I went. It was actually fairly instructive...not at all supportive of the article's assertions, but instructive nonetheless.

The gist of many of these official documents (if such a thing actually exists on the Net) is that the military might offer aircraft if it can.

Also:

3. Procedures
a. General. Military personnel will provide the following types of
support: intercept, surveillance, lift, equipment, and communications.
Military personnel may not participate in a search, seizure, arrest, or
other similar activity. This restriction would include the apprehension
of aircraft hijackers or use of military aircraft (fixed-wing or helicopter)
or other vehicles as platforms for gunfire or the use of other weapons
against suspected hijackers. In addition, assistance may not be
provided under this enclosure if it could adversely affect national
security or military preparedness.

AIRCRAFT PIRACY (HIJACKING) AND DESTRUCTION OF DERELICT AIRBORNE OBJECTS
Emphasis mine.

Derelict objects in the case of this paper are unmanned vehicles, not hijacked airliners.

I don't think any part of this "issue" is as black-and-white as YoursTruly and a few others would have us beleive. Still, it is of course their right to persue it with all their vigor. Hopefully though, at some point they'll either realize that all they have are nebulous, unsupported assertions, or they'll dig up some real meat. However, I wouldn't put money on either.