Cub Driver ) writes:
My point was that an interception mission flown on 9/11 would
necessarily have included armament on the fighter aircraft, and
that shooting down an airliner was a real possibility. Such
that the peacetime definition of " interception ", limited to
merely acquiring and identifying an aircraft, wasn't definitive
in the 9/11 context.

I don't agree. Ramming was an option, and evidently one that was
seriously considered.

Cite ? While I don't doubt that, in such a casew, ramming an
unarmed aircraft into the hijacked kamikaze would be an option
that would be considered, nothing I have yet found suggests
that this was the case that morning.

Those were attempted interceptions, in my book. That they failed was
good news for the intercepting pilots, bad news for the folks in the
World Trade Center towers and at the Pentagon.

Again, what I've read and seen spoke of armed fighters launching.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.