They didn't say that about the missile, it was just stated as a theory. They didn't say a plane didn't hit either, they just said that it would have been very difficult for someone to execute that manueveur. I personally don't agree with that part of the article either.I don't think that explosives were used in the destruction of either building, although what they say does make sense. The towers did follow the path of maximum resistance when they collapsed, but it was also the logical way for it to happen. If the buillding's frame was damaged where the plane impacted, then the section directly above the plane would fall directly down, it wouldn't go to the side if there was nothing to support it from below.I'm not saying that all of their points are valid, because some are illogical and far-fetched, but they do make some reasonable points. I also wasn't saying that I agree with this, I was simpy posting the page for discussion and presenting it as a possibility.