"I'm not saying it was an act of terrorism, but it could have been and why the rush to claim it wasn't. On 9-11-01 we had operationally a similar event where large planes were used to crash into buildings. Why not a large ship into a bridge?"
Somewhere along the line "I'm just asking questions became okay". Rather than thinking through an issue and then asking questions.
Let's look at the differences...
9/11 done at a time and place to cause the biggest loss of life, and instill the most fear.
Baltimore, done in the middle night, while a major port, not a location that would rattle the populace.
9/11, no communication.
Baltimore, communication allows less loss of life
9/11, who was responsible not immediately known.
Baltimore, Known local pilot actively involved in the communication of what was going wrong.
9/11, Incorrectly labeling the events as terrorism before validation likely to cause a larger panic than leaving it unanswered for some time.
Baltimore, given all the knowns getting the word out about an obvious accident as to opposed to an attack would remove the likelyhood of any panic.
you just have to look at this with a bit of logic and not blanketly equate major accidents with terrorist attacks by default.
