<<<In a situation where the plane were under the control of
"terrorists", it would seem the government could successfully argue a court case that shooting the plane down was a prudent and necessary intervention. I haven't got a clear answer why the Bushies seem to be covering up the truth on how Flight 93 was brought down.>>>
"If" Flight 93 was shot down, I think the government would have a responsibility to tell the truth under the circumstances. Not that the government ever lives up to that responsibility, but the situation justified that kind of response "if" it really was a non-domestic operation. The real problem with that scenario is cell phone accounts described passengers on the verge of getting control of the plane back. Shooting down the plane at that particular instant wouldn't make a bit of sense if waiting three minutes to determine the outcome of the struggle meant the lives of a hundred people.
<<<But remote control is only one option....What the plane did, curiously, was to corkscrew so that at impact, it was not in level flight, but rather was tilted at about 35-40 degrees off level.>>>
My first impression was the funny angle was a last minute correction, rather than an elegant maneuver. I suppose a case could be made for either scenario, but my take is the remote control (or variations on a similar theme) theory is based more on a need to account for the suicide nature of the attacks than anything else. Occam's razor isn't a perfect tool, but I think it hurts the case for remote control, where remote control isn't a necessary element to explain the facts, and clutters other pieces of information. Such as; if the planes could be remote controlled, there was no need to take flying lessons.
<<<Do you happen to have the name of the Israeli security company?>>>
I think I already posted the information downstream some place. I'll see if I can find it or dig it back out of my bookmarks in a follow up post. |
