it would appear from this story that the planes hit at the same height on each tower, an implication which is quickly disproved by video. the story is a great example of a blowhard spinning too far. the acceptable target area for total destruction of both buildings was obviously wider than it pretends.
re the resources and expertise required to pull off today's attacks, it's plausible that it could've been done by less than 10 people, with less than $75,000, and no more flight experience than that offered by a couple of months drilling on microsoft flight simulator. all day long people are making the attackers out as possibly much more sophisticated and financed than perhaps they were; they were precise, dedicated, and fanatical, but not necessarily wealthy or well connected. if we don't reach the logical conclusions from that reality and act accordingly, we're going to have a long haul of being the world's new sitting ducks.
If the pilots had been armed, or if concealed carry passengers with a proper permit were allowed, this would never have been attempted, let alone happened.
Well said.
This was not a huge mission logistically. The most important asset they used was prepared for them by the airleines. How much do plastic knives cost anyway? I was thinking maybe as few as eight people were involved, and thosey are already facing justice.