kevdog said:I agree, as long as there wasn't a coverup in the investigation.
And for a cover-up to be successful you would need:
the pilot of the shooting aircraft to keep quiet,
the -2 pilot to keep quiet,
the entier AWACS crew to keep quiet,
every civilian ATC controller and supervisor watching to keep quiet,
the military ATC controllers to keep quiet,
the fighter aircraft ground crews to keep quiet,
the fighter aircraft ordnance crews to keep quiet,
the squadron CO and XO and MX Officer to keep quiet,
the NTSB accident investigators to keep quiet,
the "men in black" orchestrating the cover-up to keep quiet,
their superiors to keep quiet,
the local police and sherrif and rescue responders who made it to the crash-site first to keep quiet,
the flight recorder to be doctored requiring the technicians to keep quiet
.....can I stop now or are you seeing just what the odds are that all these people involved, and NOT ONE has come forward in almost 5 years as a whistle-blower or looking for the VERY lucrative interview/book deal waiting for ANYONE with ONE SHRED of real evidence of a cover-up in the shootdown of Flight 93-----which IF WE DID shoot it down, would there really be some big outcry????
It would have sucked but I think most of the American public would have seen it as a necessary evil on that day when 3 other jets resulted in over 3000 deaths.
That plane and 100 or so pax would have resulted in another 1000 deaths.
I, for one, with no other option, would have made the call to shoot it. So why, praytell, would a "cover-up" really be necessary???
This whole arguement is completely pointless and absurd. Anyone acting as a proponent of this theory is really just showing the depths of their ignorance in not thoroughly thinking through just what a cover-up of this magnitude entails.
Please....think....about....it.