Reply #95: You are long on assertions, short on answers. [View All]

Boeing's reputation would not need to be protected

It certainly would. In case you haven't noticed, airlines are in
financial trouble these days.



http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20060326/ai_n16174874

Talking about aircraft coming apart in the sky would be bad for business.

The hijacker with the "bomb" was the first hijacker overcome by the
passengers.

If they had a bomb in the luggage, they would probably have a fake prop bomb
in the passenger compartment to make credible their claims, so the supposed
disarming of that passenger does not undo the possibility of a bomb.

there was no shootdown

You keep saying this as if you know

an admission of a shootdown was in the interests of the United States

How's that? The way they played it worked just fine. 1) Cheney made the tough
decision like a ball-player (but safely after the plane was already down),
2) people who read between the lines can believe it might have been shot down,
and 3) heroic passengers spearheaded the charge against the terrorists.

Admitting they shot it down would be bad for business. It would upset children,
and that would upset their parents. It would damage the mythic status of the
heroic passengers. It would lead to questions about the 3 minute time discrepancy,
the missing parts of the CVR, the secrecy of the black boxes. "What really happened?"
would become the story. As it is, the media are so enamored of the "let's roll" story
they won't do anything to damage it even if it's completely untrue.