4 ms·

Thanks, I've read much of the report of course. What you notice about the report is that there's a tremendous focus on the build up to the attacks, the context

Thanks, I've read much of the report of course. What you notice about the report is that there's a tremendous focus on the build up to the attacks, the context and the aftermath, but it's very light on the technical analysis of the actual event that you would normally see in an air crash investigation - such as what we're now seeing with MH17. Admittedly the two events are hardly comparable, but I stand by my observation that there's a distinct disparity between the amount & quality of information that's being disseminated. There may be perfectly good reasons for that.

stvswn 11y ago
In other air crash investigations, the technical analysis is the most important part -- because a technical component failed, or because the type of missile needs to be deduced, etc. In the 9/11 attacks, people intentionally flew the planes into buildings. There is not much to talk about, technically -- the control systems worked as intended, and the technology used by the attackers only got as sophisticated as box cutters. So what would you like to see? A detailed analysis of all of the ways the plane did exactly what you'd expect? Do you think the onus is on the investigators to disprove conspiracy theories? It's like you want a report called "Why it wasn't a missile: a detailed report on how Flight 93 looks like what you'd expect if terrorists hijacked a plane and crashed it into the ground." You're asking others to disprove your hypothesis, for which there's no evidence in the positive, while ignoring competing evidence. This is the hallmark of bad conspiracy theories.