>Sure, I will ask an expert, but why is it that you get angry if I choose
>to ask a few friends (which is what I hope most of LBO is to me)? That
>my message (and the ensuing thread) are occupying your mailbox and your
>time? Is it the reference to "anti-conspiracy theorists"? That was
>intended to address the question to that sub-group who might know the
>answer, given their efforts to dispel "conspiracy theories".
>
>I do not think there is anything wrong with naive questioning.
>
Ravi,
I apologize. It looks like I misread the spirit of your question. I'm all for naive questioning, I do it all the time, and I agree that it's often the best way to get at an answer.
The best account of the hijackers' training is probably the new book by Lawrence Wright, The Looming Tower, which I haven't read yet. As I mentioned, I think the notion the hijackers weren't all that bright is probably a false premise that goes a long way toward answering your question. (Some of them were very bright, others pretty dull.) As for how hard it is to aim a plane at a skyscraper, I suspect only a pilot could answer that one.
Best, Seth