<forwarded>
That was exactly my thought. Per FAA regulations, IIRC, after the incident on that Alaska Airlines flight where the guy who had encephalitis went berserk and tried to storm the cockpit, the cockpit doors are required to be locked at all times during flight. I find it difficult to believe that the gentlemen with knives could get the cockpit door open. (I would find it hard to believe even if they had guns; no sane pilot would open a door and allow some jackass into the cockpit, even if they claimed to have explosives. "Fuck you, if you come in we all die anyway, go ahead and blow us up" would be the expected response.)
At any rate, that raises an interesting question. Several, even. How the fuck _did_ they gain control of the plane? And once they did, how did they fly it? Flying a 767 is not an easy task, which is why commercial jumbo jet pilots do not grow on trees, and are not paid minimum wage. As I find it highly unlikely that "They" could twist, extort, recruit, or subvert at least four pilots from two separate airlines into suicide missions killing everybody on board their flight and in the collision zone, I seek an alternate explanation. Also, WTF were the passengers doing while they hijacked the flight? How many people armed only with knives would be required to subdue the passengers, and the flight crew, and get into the cockpit, and fly the plane? How would all of these people, if ethnically or religiously tied to certain groups, get on board a flight with no one noticing, and without tripping the Sekr1t Pr0f1l1ng S0ftw at r3z? Why was only one of these hijackings averted, at least to the extent that the hijackers did not achieve their goal of destroying a major building or area? I know if a prospective hijacker had a knife, it would take me exactly three seconds to get out of my seat and start whooping some ass. I know that I would probably succeed if the knife were under about four inches, although not without wounds. What happened aboard these flights? Everybody on board the flights was killed; is this a Sinister Thing ("no witnesses")?
I forgot to add one possibility to my earlier stream of musings; the possibility also exists that there is an ulterior action which this is serving to obfuscate or destroy evidence of. Who were the primary inhabitants of the World Trade Center? Was there any legitimate reason for attacking the Pentagon in such an inefficient manner? Would grand larceny covered by a "terrorist" attack, executed by a patsy group of hijackers or through technical means, be possible?
(Not to go all XXXXXish on everybody, but these are questions I am curious to know the answers to, or at least sufficiently convincing hypotheses. I do not subscribe to the "gubbermint planned it to take away our rights" theory, yet. This "feels" like the genuine deal, for some reason. Maybe The Force is lying to me, I dunno. Time will tell; it always does.)