NO FIGHTER JETS NEEDED

i've noticed a large majority of people that keep bringing up the scrambling of the fighter jets; why they weren't scrambled earlier, why they didn't fly at top speed to reach their target, etx. i even heard one poster ask "who would be able to pull the trigger" to shoot down the planes. first of all, let me answer the last: JUST ABOUT ANY PILOT IN THE AIR FORCE WOULD HAVE SHOT DOWN THE PLANE WITH VERY LITTLE OR NO HESITATION. even our government admits that it's accepted policy to shoot down planes that have been hijacked and are intended for use as weapons against the us populace. i'm sure that they're prepared for this eventuality. if not, they probably wouldn't make it into the pilots' seat. if i was in their position, even as a civilian, if i knew that they were flying towards dc and had made no demands, i could and would shoot them down. it might weigh on my conscience, but that's the way it would have to be.
as for the planes being scrambled, you can forget all of the CRAP (and that's really what it is) that the government contends. the whole story about the planes heading towards nyc first is an obvious lie. like the controllers didn't see what heading they were taking immediately and couldn't tell them to change course?!?!
forget all of that bs. purge it from your mind.
now ask yourself this:
if the government admits that the policy is to shoot them down, yet asserts that they couldn't get the fighters there in time, what about ground defenses? you don't have to have a plane to shoot down another plane. does the government contend that there are NO SHOULDER-LAUNCHED SAM'S IN THE NATION'S CAPITAL? one grunt with a shoulder-launched missile could have left the plane a smoking pile of rubble (as opposed to the plane dissappearing into a hole in the pentagon) on the outskirts of dc. or on the lawn of the pentagon, if need be. i've never heard this question asked of any of the major government players, nor have i ever heard anyone on any other boards answer it satisfactorily (most use the ridiculous, afore-mentioned "who would have pulled the trigger" excuse). this is only one small part of the official story that's an apparent falsehood. the siezure of all of the video tape and their subsequent refusal to release them pops into mind as well. what is it about the hotel-rooftop video camera footage that would compromise national security? nothing, of course. i did hear something that might make a little sense; that the government is holding them until a trial. however, this begs the question, "a trial for whom?" the government contends that osama was ultimately responsible, yet the charge of "conspiracy to commit mass murder" is consipicuously absent from his fbi profile. it mentions NOTHING about 9-11.
am i missing something?

did anyone else see bush trying to "answer" when critics asked him why he and cheney would agree to testify ONLY IF THEY TESTIFIED SIDE BY SIDE?!?!
can anyone else think of a plausible reason for this? the only one that i can imagine is that bush is too stupid (and, really, this isn't up for debate, watch and listen to him, he's only a step away from the short bus) to be coached. all of his advisers knew that if they questioned cheney and bush seperately, it would be too easy for investigators to trip up bush and catch him lying. does anyone else have a take on this?