5 ms·
One suggested explanation for the first point I've seen is that it was to limit damage to the surrounding areas in case of an uncontrolled collapse. I don't rec
by stordoff 5y ago
One suggested explanation for the first point I've seen is that it was to limit damage to the surrounding areas in case of an uncontrolled collapse. I don't recall any evidence being presented for this claim though, and it doesn't strike me as particularly plausible, as it doesn't seem worth complicating the plan to such a degree for seemingly little benefit.
The use of a missile rather than a plane has never made any sense to me - one unexpected photo, or even a plausible witness account, gives you a problem, despite there being an obvious way to avoid it. It also invites questions if the result is inconsistent with a plane crash in any way.