The theory of a plane with explosives in the baggage compartment, remote controlled, exploding just prior to hitting the wall, with passengers and crew knocked out, perhaps with chloroform gas, would explain their sadly becoming DNA samples.
However, the modifications to a Boeing 757 or 767 necessary to accomplish remote control would amount to a major redesign and replacement of all the control systems. This could not be done without several months of design and construction work, involving the withdrawal from service of the four airliners involved, and the modifications would be obvious to anyone flying them after that. It's simply impossible.
The plane explosion scattered airliner debris all over the lawn, in a wide pattern, even on to Route 395. This corroborates the theory. If the plane exploded inside the Pentagon, debris would tend to shoot out mainly in the direction of the hole.
Misrepresenting the real events, like truthers always do. The airliner exploded as it hit the Pentagon, throwing lighter debris in all directions. The more massive components continued in the direction they'd already been going, penetrating the walls of the building. Describing this as "the plane exploded inside the Pentagon" is absurd and dishonest.
The first of the only 5 photo frames released (if we can believe a photo that has "Sep. 12" instead of Sep. 11) shows a huge flame going upwards and outwards in all directions. If the plane exploded inside the Pentagon, we would expect to see a flame shooting mostly out the hole.
Same again.
We observe a curiously small hole, with no distinct wing, engine, or tail marks. We don't see big sections, as with other crashes. This is hardly excellent agreement. The exploding plane theory explains these anomalies perfectly. Explosives can make a big plane into a small, wingless, tail-less, engine-less plane.
Again, misrepresenting the facts. We see a large hole corresponding to the fuselage impact, two smaller holes corresponding to the engine impacts, and widespread damage along the bottom of the wall close to ground level corresponding to the wing impacts. Lighter parts of the plane, such as the wingtips and the tailplane, didn't cause major structural damage. All in all, it agrees very precisely with what would be expected.
And this piece of truther misrepresentation is quite simply bizarre. We know that about 90 feet of the Pentagon wall collapsed. Truthers insist on pretending that only a 16 foot section was even damaged.
The physical evidence, and many credible eye witness testimonies, point to a plane hitting the Pentagon wall. However, it was going so fast the human eye could not detect that it exploded a fraction of a second before hitting.
Fantasy, and hence not worthy of comment.
Explosives would also explain the problems with the Flight Data Recorder (FDR).
Since there are no problems to explain, they won't have a hard time doing it. But I notice you simply throw out a sweeping assertion without tryin to justify it. I hereby challenge you to do so: explain, in detail, what are the problems with the FDR, and in detail how explosives explain those problems.
The OCT has an obvious problem. All people have an instinctive desire to live, even "devout" Muslims like Hani Hanjur and lap dance aficionado Muhammed Atta. How could Osama be sure they would not steer the plane away from their assigned buildings at the last moment? Or miss the building by human error?
The same is true of every suicide bomber; any one can change his mind at the last moment. And yet, so few of them do, because they've been persuaded that there are greater rewards awaiting them after death. It's just an operational risk. And if they'd missed the buildings, so what? Hundreds of people have still been killed in a successful terrorist attack; it's just a smaller victory, from al-Qaeda's point of view.
Oh, and that bit about Atta liking lap dancers: it's another lie. Look it up on 9/11 Myths.
But a remote controlled drone aircraft has deadly accuracy, and no fear of death. Who has access to drones, and could program them?
Nobody has access to drones resembling Boeing 757s and 767s, and airliners with electromechanical autopilots can't be programmed. So, your alternative scenario is (a) derived from lies and misrepresentations, and (b) physically impossible.
I'm not saying this theory is the way it happened. Just that it could have happened this way, and we need to investigate it. Detectives do this every day, establishing motive and opportunity.
[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_193154dafdf441a9ca.jpg[/URL]
But they start from reality and plausibility, not lies and impossibilities. That's your problem, right there.
Dave
