Ian P wrote:
...
9/11 If US knew those planes where going to or thought they might have caused the death and destruction they did would they have shot them down ?
I think they would and think we would
What's sad is that in many cases, the terrorists have already won; here, for instance, we actually have superficially sane, intelligent people, actually advocating that the State
should shoot down a passenger jet full of innocent civilians, at an unknown toll of death and destruction at some random location, as this is somehow "better" than taking the risk the plane might be destined for an Olympic venue.
There are indeed many people in the States who would rather their government shot down an airliner than let it potentially crash into (say) the White House or the Pentagon. As if murdering hundreds or thousands of your own citizens is somehow a victory if you don't let the terrorists knock down a famous building. If you don't see why that's nuts then there is nothing I can say to you.
In answer to your question, I ask you to think carefully about it and answer again yourself. What caused most of the deaths on 9/11 was NOT the plane crashes but the totally unpredictable collapse of the buildings, and compounded by the ignorance of the majority of the casualties above the impacts of the existence of a secondary fire escape route.
But it has already been posited on here that a plane crashing into any given city area will only cause relatively localised damage. (This must be true, although the proponents overlook that this would not be a low speed impact and the casualties would be widespread and worse than is suggested). And it would (but for the collapses) have been true of 9/11. So please explain to me how you would justify shooting down the Twin Tower planes, when the anticipated death toll from hitting the Twin Towers would only be the same as the plane crashing anywhere else in New York?
Please explain to me why it would be better to shoot down a plane rather than take the chance of it crashing into the White House, or the Pentagon, or a skyscraper?
Mercifully, none of you are in charge. I am certain that none of our armed forces would under any circumstances shoot down a planeful of innocent civilians, murdering many more on the ground. There is a risk that not doing so would allow a target such as the Olympic village to be struck but the blood would be on the hands of the terrorists, and not our own government.
The other fact overlooked is that no aircraft could be hijacked like the 9/11 hijacks, simply because the terrorists would not have access to the cockpit, and because the cockpit crew are armed. I also believe that following 9/11 you would not nowadays get a planeful of passengers who would meekly await their fate. Those people probably expected to land somewhere remote, and be negotiated as hostages. Nowadays, people would certainly think, if they don't attack the hijackers, then they are dead anyway, so they would have nothing to lose. Indeed that was already demonstrated by the passengers on UA 93, who got word what had happened elsewhere.
