Comment: You could make the same argument in reverse

(See in situ)

You could make the same argument in reverse

Managing "fake" plane crashes and eyewitnesses is much more of a nightmare, in my opinion. Remote control technology has been around for decades, so your argument that the planes might "miss" is not even in the realm of possibility.

There might even be a third option that it was a military plane with explosives, a warhead, etc... Much easier to do as well. And "smoke generators"? That is too over the top even for me.

I don't know about the force of the plane versus building. While the building was made to withstand an airline crash (which it did)the sides of the building was not a solid mass to do calculations with. Given the gaps between beams and that there were spaces we call "windows", the idea of a plane sliding down the side or bouncing off seems cartoonish. What could go through a window would go through a window.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain