(All following is IMHO) :rolleyes:
Someone refuted that a 757 could be remote controlled... Why?
Do you people really imagine, that someone with a RC-Plane Style Remote Controller
sits somewhere, jiggling the control-sticks? That would be even more difficult, than flying the plane by hand inside the cockpit.
I dont understand why there is so much discussion about how good of a pilot you have to be, just put a guidance system in place and a beacon at the
target location... done.
These where calculated, computer-controlled flightpaths, and thus this extremely high rate of success.
Just do a Flightplan for yourself, try hitting a target, from a location you dont know exactly. Even if there where Terrorists onboard, they'd have
to find out where they are ATM and then calculate the route to hit the pentagon. Its not like, that they where already onroute to the Pentagon or
WTC.
You just dont jump in the seat and fly there, like you would with your car and moreover everybody knows how easy it is to get lost driving in strange
territories ...
And why not gass/poison the crew? Too complicated?
The Planes do it by themselves already

...
[Toxic cockpit fumes that bring danger to the skies]
www.guardian.co.uk...
About the C-130-like plane that has been seen at the Pentagon:
[DC-130 and GC-130 drone control]
en.wikipedia.org...
Now look at those drones/missiles
[Air Force's Secret Drone Program Revealed]
www.defensetech.org...
[Teledyne AQM-91A Compass Arrow]
www.spyflight.co.uk...
[Teledyne AQM-91A Compass Arrow] from United States Air Force Museum
www.wpafb.af.mil...
there you have nice tailsection, quite large, a single turbojet engine, to be launched by a C-130 variant (which has been seen at the site), etc...
Just browse those myriad differnt drones variants, from tiny to huge...
Anybody without trained eye WILL see a kind (any kind) of airplane, especially if its paintjob fits something well known.
And saying that they are too small, well, everybody knows how easy it is to misjudge distance and perspective and few have experienced a flying jumbo
over their heads, so we dont have an example how that looks, feels, smells... and thus cannot say 100% that this was actually a jumbo but rather it
was an AIRCRAFT.
Eyewitnesses are interesting, at best. All investigators know that fact. Even in a simple car accident you have many different accounts. And the more
time passes, the more bits get added to that "experience", especially after media influences (studies have been done about that for many decades)
Its not only about NOT ANSWERED questions, but answers that defy any common sense. The whole handling by the authorities of that case is absurd.
[edit on 12-5-2006 by electroNIX]