Why Is It a Conspiracy Theory

to think that men armed only with small knives or boxcutters would have trouble taking control of four separate commercial planes without even one plane reporting a hijacking to ATC?

If you were a terrorist, would you base your whole dastardly plan on the ability to overpower flight attendents and pilots with these weapons?

What are the odds that this plan could work -- all without one plane reporting a hijacking to ATC?

I had a recent e-mail exchange with a fellow from Democratic Underground who works in the airline industry. He believes that the terrorists really were able to take over the planes by brute force. However, he says he thinks that rather than attack the pilots with knives or boxcutters, the hijackers used a heavy blunt instrument to knock out the pilots.

While perhaps this blunt instrument tactic would work better for a hijacker than knives and boxcutters, think how risky it is for the hijacker if he missed taking out the pilot on the first swing. The hijacker is left essentially unprotected in terms of a hand-to-hand struggle. Moreover, the blunt force attack relies much more on a stealth attack.

So what are the odds that THIS plan could work on four planes, on eight pilots -- without one plane reporting a hijacking to ATC?

If you were a terrorist, would you base your whole dastardly plan on the ability to overpower flight attendents and pilots with a heavy blunt instrument?

I think not.

And I don't think it is a conspiracy theory to propose either that the hijackers had more lethal weapons such as guns OR that the hijackings weren't what they appeared to be at all. It is more simple logic.