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&#x2F;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.<p>So what would you like to see?  A detailed analysis of all of the ways the plane did exactly what you&#x27;d expect?  Do you think the onus is on the investigators to disprove conspiracy theories? It&#x27;s like you want a report called &quot;Why it wasn&#x27;t a missile: a detailed report on how Flight 93 looks like what you&#x27;d expect if terrorists hijacked a plane and crashed it into the ground.&quot;<p>You&#x27;re asking others to disprove your hypothesis, for which there&#x27;s no evidence in the positive, while  ignoring competing evidence.  This is the hallmark of bad conspiracy theories.