>I have a question for those of you who dismiss doubts about the accepted
>notion of events on 9/11. I am hoping you will help me figure this out:
>how is it that a bunch of guys who don't seem to be all that bright and
>well-trained, managed to fly large, sophisticated planes into towers,
>getting it right not once, but twice? What am I missing? Are these
>planes easier to fly than I think? Is navigating your way in three
>dimensions to a place that you cannot even see, easier than I think? I
>am not being facetious here. I do not much believe in the alternate
>theories of 9/11. But I am curious about why the simplest (and most
>plausible) explanation has giant holes (at least for me).
>
> --ravi
>
>
>
I won't try to answer this directly, since I don't know anything about flying planes. But why exactly is this a "hole" in the explanation? This is a recurrent motif in 9/11 conspiracizing: posing a question about some specialized field you don't know anything about, like skyscraper engineering or commercial aviation, and then asking rhetorically, Am I expected to believe this? Well, why don't you ask an expert? There are thousands of people around the world who know exactly how easy or hard it is to learn to fly airplanes. Have you noticed that there was no groundswell of incredulous skepticism from these people after 9/11? (And by the way, why do you say the hijackers weren't very bright? Mohammed Atta had a degree in urban planning. And a number of the hijackers went to flight school, as I'm sure you know.)
It's like saying - I don't believe Hezbollah fought Israel to a standstill. How could a third-world guerrilla army fight so well against a giant military machine? There must be "giant holes" in the "mainstream story." Well, no, there aren't.
Seth