SoDesuKa
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-30-04 01:23 AM
Original message |
|
What is the reason being offered to explain why no F-16's intercepted Flight 11? That's the plane that hit the north tower, the first one. One possible explanation is that somebody high up suspended ordinary procedures, but I'm talking about the reasons put out for public consumption.
I'm hearing stuff to the effect that by sheerest coincidence no jets were available to intercept Flight 11. Of course it's nonsense, but the details of the story are that there were only 14 fighter jets throughout the entire country. Help me out. Are there sources that refute the argument that Flight 11 went unchallenged because there were no fighter jets in the area? I know it's bullshit, but I want to know if it's been actively refuted.
|