On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 21:17:51 GMT, Jose wrote:

Yanno... the puzzle that I have is this:

The two theories vying for contention are
Theory 1: Terrorists hijacked commercial airliners and flew them into
the WTC and the Pentagon (and a field in Pennsylvania), presumably to
terrorize the US.

Theory 2: There were =no= airliners involved (since it would be
impossible for terrorists to fly commercial airplanes),

Given the training and certified instrument rated pilot rating of at least one
of the hijackers, it's entirely within the realm of possibility for them to have
taken control of the planes and flew them into the buildings. Hell, I could
have done it and I'm not even a licensed pilot.

Finding New York City from West Virginia is as simple as flying East to the
coast and then following it North, once there I could easily have seen the
building from 10+ miles away in the perfect weather that day. As long as I
didn't try anything too radical with the yoke (like an Immelman, for instance) I
wouldn't have had any trouble lining the jet up with the building and just
flying straight into it. It's not like I've got to reconfigure the controls for
takeoff or landing or worry about little things like efficient fuel useage, air
travel corridors or even other planes, the FAA would clear the airspace for me.

Now, given that destroying the buildings in any fashion involves loss of
lots of innocent lives, if our government wanted to do this, why would
it spare the lives of a few onboard the airplanes in order to fake the
attack. Why not simply have the government commandeer the airplanes
through its own agents, and fly them into the buildings?

One of the prevalent tinfoil hat theories is that the government flew the
planes into the buildings by remote control, letting them do it with their own
agents and not even requiring any of them to commit suicide at the same time.

They even claim that all the voice messages from the hijackers and phone calls
from the passengers onboard the planes were faked.