Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

All flight instructors evaluating Hani Hanjour gave him a failing grade.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
JohnyCanuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-07-09 07:53 AM
Original message
All flight instructors evaluating Hani Hanjour gave him a failing grade.
Edited on Tue Jul-07-09 07:54 AM by JohnyCanuck
Except for one, that is, who evaluated his piloting skills and said he was a "good pilot". He testified to this at the 9/11 Commission hearings but unfortunately can no longer be located to be interviewed to see if he can account for the vast discrepancy between his assessment of Hani Hanjour's piloting skills and those of every other flight instructor who had an opportunity to evaluate Hanjour's performance as a pilot.


How the FBI and 9/11 Commission Suppressed Key Evidence about Hani Hanjour, alleged hijack pilot of AAL 77

In August 2004 when the 9/11 Commission completed its official investigation of the September 11, 2001 attack, the commission transfered custody of its voluminous records to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).<1> There, the records remained under lock and key for four and a half years, until last January when NARA released a fraction of the total for public viewing. Each day, more of the released files are scanned and posted on the Internet, making them readily accessible. Although most of the newly-released documents are of little interest, the files I will discuss in this article contain important new information.

SNIP

It turns out that just three days after Hani Hanjour failed a flight evaluation in a Cessna 172 at Freeway airport he showed up at Congressional Air Charters, located down the road at Gaithersburg airport, also in the Washington suburbs. Once again Hanjour attempted to rent a plane, and again he was asked to go up with an instructor for a flight evaluation to confirm his flight skills. The plane was the same: a Cessna 172. Yet, on this occasion Hanjour passed with flying colors and, later, this other instructor gave testimony to the commission that turned out to be crucial. The final report mentions the instructor’s name only once in a brief endnote buried at the back of the report. The note states:

Hanjour successfully conducted a challenging certification flight supervised by an instructor at Congressional Air Charter of Gaithersburg, Maryland, landing at a small airport with a difficult approach. The instructor thought Hanjour may have had training from a military pilot because he used a terrain recognition system for navigation. Eddie Shalev interview. (Apr. 9, 2004)<24>

SNIP

So, who is Eddie Shalev? His identity remained unknown for more than seven years, but was finally revealed in one of the files released in January 2009 by the National Archives. The document, labelled a “Memorandum for the Record,” is a summary of the April 2004 interview with Eddie Shalev conducted by commission staffer Quinn John Tamm.<32> The document confirms that Shalev went on record: “Mr Shalev stated that based on his observations Hanjour was a ‘good’ pilot.” It is noteworthy that Tamm also spoke with Freeway instructors Sheri Baxter and Ben Conner, as revealed by yet another recently-released document.<33> Although I was unable to reach Tamm or Baxter for comment, I did talk with Conner, who confirmed the conversation.<34> Conner says he fully expected to testify before the commission. Perhaps not surprisingly, the call never came.

But the shocker is the revelation that Eddie Shalev is an Israeli and served in the Israeli army. The file states that “Mr. Shalev served in the Israeli Defense Forces in a paratroop regiment. He was a jumpmaster on a Boeing C-130. Mr. Shalev moved to the Gaithersburg area in April 2001 and was sponsored for employment by Congressional Air Charters...(which) has subsequently gone out of business.”

http://www.the911mysteryplane.com/ (See June 28/09 entry)








Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-07-09 08:12 AM
Response to Original message
1. Those damn Jews - I knew they were behind 911!
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Theobald Donating Member (411 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-07-09 08:16 AM
Response to Original message
2. Great Canard - The Jews Did It!
Every Israeli serves in the military; it's mandatory, so the fact that an Israeli served in the military is not surprising.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnyCanuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-07-09 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. But, regardless of his army service, wouldn't you be curious to know
why Shalev thought Hanjour was a good pilot, while numerous other instructors all thought the complete opposite, i.e. Hanjour was an incompetent pilot and a flying disaster waiting to happen?

After all, the 9/11 Commission's claim that Hanjour was a skillful enough pilot to execute the difficult, diving/curve approach and then hit the Pentagon (in a large jet he had no record of flying before) apparently relies for credibility mainly on Shalev's testimony. Just about every other flight instructor who had to evaluate Hanjour's piloting abilities said, more or less, the guy should never be let behind the controls of a Cessna on his own because he just didn't seem to know what he was doing.

As we know, the 9/11 Commission did not begin its work until 2003–––more than a year after the fact. By this time a number of journalists had already done independent research and published articles about various facets of 9/11. Some of this work was of excellent quality. The Washington Post, for example, interviewed aviation experts who stated that the plane allegedly piloted by Hani Hanjour had been flown “with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm.”<2> Yet, strangely, when other journalists investigated Hani Hanjour they found a trail of clues indicating he was a novice pilot, wholly incapable of executing a top gun maneuver and a successful suicide attack in a Boeing 757. By early 2003 this independent research was a matter of public record, which created a serious problem for the 9/11 Commission...

http://www.the911mysteryplane.com/

Unfortunately, the whereabouts of Mr. Shalev are unknown, so unless he comes forward or someone manages to find where he is, we'll never get to hear him offer an explanation as to why his evaluation of Hanjour's ability as a pilot was 180 degrees opposite of what all the other flight instructors thought.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Theobald Donating Member (411 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-07-09 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. No it is not regardless of his military service
So before his Jewishness was relevant and now it's not? You are the one who brought up his military service in the 'Israeli' army. His military service has absolutely no bearing on the case unless you think that the 'Jews', specifically, the 'Israeli Jews' were responsible. Obviously you do think so or you wouldn't have brought it up.

The validity of the belief that Hanjour was capable of performing the maneuver has nothing to do with the testimony of Shalev. The maneuver was performed, whether it was difficult or not is an entirely different question, and it is believed that Hanjour was the pilot, therefor Hanjour was most likely capable of performing the maneuver.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KDLarsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-08-09 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #4
11. "the whereabouts of Mr. Shalev are unknown"
Unless you actually bother to do any decent form of research: http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Eddie_Shalev
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ohio Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-07-09 10:42 AM
Response to Original message
3. What a steaming pile of shit
Will the "truth" movement stop at nothing to blame the eviiiil jews for 9/11?

"The memorandum raises disturbing questions. Consider the staffer’s strange choice of words in describing Shalev’s employment. What did Quinn John Tamm mean when he wrote that Shalev “was sponsored for employment”? Did the commission bother to investigate Congressional Air Charters?"

No, the real question is, Did the author of the article bother to try and see what "was sponsored for employment" meant? No, because he is a douchebag that wants to blame the eviiiil jews for 9/11 so he tries to make this suspicious. It is in fact, common terminology for when a non-US citizen gets a job in the US, they need a fucking sponsor. A steaming pile of shit.

oh, but it goes on.

"Real people have known addresses. But the whereabouts of Eddie Shalev has been unknown for years. As reported by David Griffin, a 2007 search of the national telephone directory, plus Google searches by research librarian Elizabeth Woodworth, turned up no trace of him. A LexisNexis search by Matthew Everett also came up dry.<35> Not satisfied, I conducted my own search and did turn up two possible addresses for an "Eddy Shalev" in the Gaithersburg-Rockville, Maryland area. But the lead went nowhere."

ooooo, how suspicious, he can't be found in 2007 by fucking google and a librarian (WTF? people pay for books "researched" this way? and believe it?), gee, I wonder why?

"Mr. Shalev moved to the Gaithersburg area in April 2001 and was sponsored for employment by Congressional Air Charters... has subsequently gone out of business."

"The 9/11 memorandum indicates that Shalev’s US visa was about to expire in July 2004, suggesting that Shalev may have returned to Israel."

oh, because the company he worked for went out of business and being on a work visa, he had to go the fuck home. Any idiot that did even a little checking would have realized that. So even aware they are looking for him in the wrong fucking country, they try to make it seem suspicious that they can't find him. Douchebags.

This "article" is nothing more then a shitty attempt to once again blame the eviiil jews for 9/11 and thinly veiled antisemitism. A steaming pile of shit. Fucking disgusting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-07-09 11:28 AM
Response to Original message
5. This bullshit has been repeatedly debunked...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ardent15 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-07-09 12:41 PM
Response to Original message
6. Hanjour was a shitty pilot if you compare him to most professional pilots, BUT...
..he had enough skills to take a 757 in autopilot (Which is not that hard) and hit the Pentagon (easy).

He wasn't trying to impress anyone at the FAA, he was on a suicide mission, and he got all the training he needed for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-08-09 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. how do you know it was him?
as no jumbo jet crashed into the Pent. then I'm not sure where the pilot came in?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-08-09 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. What were the passengers - identified by DNA - traveling in then? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-08-09 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #9
20. passengers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-10-09 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #20
49. Yah, you know these people

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/12/victim-capsule-flight77.htm

Their families will tell you they are fucking dead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-08-09 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. I sincerely beg you to quit embarrassing DU with...
your goofy ''no-plane'' bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-08-09 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #10
19. OK we'll ask for a full report
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ardent15 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-08-09 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. Uh..yes, it has been proven that AA 77, a 757,crashed into the Pentagon
This "no 757 hit the Pentagon" crap has been debunked time and time again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-08-09 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #12
18. the fact that a large airliner crashed into the P has been debunked
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ohio Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-08-09 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. Link?
and please... fantasies are not debunking, something with facts and not baseless conjecture.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-08-09 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Link?
?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ohio Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 02:00 AM
Response to Reply #22
26. You have made a claim...
I would like to see the proof of your claim. The common method of asking for such on a message board is "Link?". Meaning, "Do you have a link to something to back up your claim?". I would prefer a reputable site, one that deals in facts and not fantasies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. Claim?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. Now R.L. is going into the...
"truther rope-a-dope" mode. As I have said earlier, R.L. is not a serious debater.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. well
one day you will find out what took place
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. Now you're retreating into the "I told you so/You'll be sorry" mode...
Edited on Thu Jul-09-09 05:14 PM by SDuderstadt
Why can't you debate these issues with facts?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. you won't be sorry but you will have to eat your words!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. Let us know when you have that smoking gun, RL...
It's been nearly eight years now. What are you waiting for?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #32
37. no large passenger plane crashed into the Pentagon - period
fact
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. Bullshit...
there are 100+ direct eyewitnesses...your claim is indefensible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. sorry but
you weren't there
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. Neither were you....
the eyewitnesses were. This is stupid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. really?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. From here on out...
I'm invoking "Lared's Rule"...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-10-09 07:45 AM
Response to Reply #42
43. really!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-10-09 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #43
52. Now we know
how you got over 1000 posts :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-10-09 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #37
51. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Ohio Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #29
34. Strange...
You do not wish to share the truth but rather play games? Does that not make you as guilty in the cover-up as those you accuse?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-10-09 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #34
45. are you worried?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ohio Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-10-09 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #45
54. Worried? No, confused
I see no point to your posts. Wild claims with any offer of proof. Games. Makes no sense to me. See, I don't believe any of the regular posters in this forum will ever change each others minds. I do think however, that a good number of people do come here to read so they can make up their minds. Perhaps you see it differently, does not matter because regardless of how I try to look at it, your posts make no sense.

If you think of this forum as I do, do you really think your posting style makes your side look credible?

If you think of this forum as each of the sides trying to convince the other, again, do you really think your posting style makes your side look credible?

If you do not care about convincing anyone because you yourself are convinced, why post at all... especially in a manner that hurts your beliefs rather then helps them?

meh, a mild curiosity for me at most. I know enough now to see there is no point in discussion with you on this topic, I have no interest in... whatever it is your doing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-08-09 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #18
23. I am sincerely begging you to...
quit embarrassing DU with this no planes nonsense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-10-09 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #18
50. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-08-09 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #8
14. It is time for this no planes BS to end.
You are embarrassing yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-08-09 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. It's profoundly embarrassing to DU...
It's one thing to "just ask questions"...it's quite another to propound goofy theories that have been repeatedly and soundly debunked. It's time for the "no-planers" to hang it up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-08-09 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. the full story will come out one day
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-08-09 11:11 PM
Response to Reply #17
24. R.L. is not a serious debater....
that much should be obvious. That the "no planes" nonsense persists nearly 6 months into the Obama administration is seriously embarrassing to DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-10-09 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #17
53. I'm guessing your president
would think you are a fucking kook.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-08-09 08:10 PM
Response to Original message
13. The FAA disagrees
In 1996, Hanjour returned to the United States to pursue flight training, after being rejected by a Saudi flight school. He checked out flight schools in Florida, California, and Arizona; and he briefly started at a couple of them before returning to Saudi Arabia. In 1997, he returned to Florida and then, along with two friends,went back to Arizona and began his flight training there in earnest. After about three months, Hanjour was able to obtain his private pilot’s license. Several more months of training yielded him a commercial pilot certificate, issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in April 1999. He then returned to Saudi Arabia.


http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Hani_Hanjour_Timeline:_Official
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-08-09 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Stupid facts...
always messing up truther's 'theories'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-08-09 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #13
25. Report: 9/11 Hijacker Bypassed FAA
"Sources and agency records cited by The Dallas Morning News showed that Hani Saleh Hanjour obtained certification by using private examiners who independently contract with the FAA. That certification allowed him to begin passenger jet training at an Arizona flight school despite having what instructors later described as limited flying skills and an even more limited command of English."


http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91553&page=1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 04:25 AM
Response to Reply #25
27. From the same link
Agency records show that Hanjour was certified as an "Airplane Multi-Engine Land/Commercial Pilot" on April 15, 1999, by Daryl Strong, a designated pilot examiner in Tempe, Ariz. It was the last of three certifications Hanjour obtained from private examiners.

Strong, 71, said his flight logs confirm that he conducted a check ride with Mr. Hanjour in 1999 in a twin-engine Piper Apache but that he remembers nothing remarkable about him. Strong, with more than 50 years of flying experience that included a commercial crop duster, said until recently he conducted about 200 such check rides each year, at $200 per flight.


So Hanjour obtained three certifications from private examiners contracted via the FAA. He obviously convinced three examiners he was capable (but unremarkable)

So what is your point? Hanjour could obviously fly an aircraft. He didn't have to concern himself with landing or takeoff. It seems unremarkable to me that he could crash a jet into the side of a building.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 07:02 AM
Response to Reply #27
28. FAA refuses to discuss how Hanjour was able to get a license
Edited on Thu Jul-09-09 07:11 AM by procopia
Would you expect Daryl Strong to admit he certified a pilot with dubious skills? His was the last of Hanjour's 3 certifications, Yet, "At the next flight school Hanjour will attend in early 2001, the staff will be so appalled at his lack of skills that they will repeatedly contact the FAA and ask them to investigate how he got a pilot’s license"

"The Washington Post will note that, since Hanjour’s pilot skills were so bad, the issue of how he was able to get a license 'remains a lingering question that FAA officials refuse to discuss.'”

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=daryl_strong


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-09-09 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #28
36. So what, he was a lousy pilot.
As pointed out almost an innumerable amount of times in the last 7 plus years he only had to fly and crash the plane, something that does not take extraordinary or even ordinary pilot skills.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-10-09 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #36
47. Maybe it isn't as easy as some claim
Do you think you could do it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-10-09 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. I am 100 percent confident I could do it
I have two friends that are pilots, One commercial, one private. I have asked them about the difficulties of crashing a commercial airliner into the WTC and the pentagon. Both affirmed that with with some training and a small amount a flying time a reasonably accurate crash is hardly a huge challenge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-11-09 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #48
55. Somehow I knew you would say that...
Can you explain how Hanjour was able to progress from one deemed "incompetent to fly alone," in August 2001 to one able to:

execute "an incredibly precise diving turn at a rate of 360 degrees/minute while descending at 3,500 ft/min, at the end of which "Hanjour" allegedly levels out at ground level. The maneuver was in fact so precisely executed that the air traffic controllers at Dulles refused to believe the blip on their screen was a commercial airliner. Danielle O'Brian, one of the air traffic controllers at Dulles who reported seeing the aircraft at 9:25 said, 'The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane.'" (ABC News, 10/24/2001, also archived at www.cooperativeresearch.org)

on 9/11?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-11-09 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #55
56. Think
How often would a flight controler see an airliner make a turn like that? Answer: Except during test fights, never.

Why would an airliner need to make a turn like that? Answer: Never during routine flight. Their flight paths are preplaned, predictable and preplotted.

Why don't airliners make turns like that? Answer: passenger comfort, and uncessary stress to the airframe.

Is an airliner capable making manuvers like that? Answser: Sure, they do so at airshows and during flight testing all the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-11-09 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #56
57. Thanks
You explained how an airliner is capable of making the maneuver. You didn't explain how a pilot deemed "incompetent to fly alone" could make it, however.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-11-09 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #57
58. Think
Edited on Sat Jul-11-09 11:22 AM by vincent_vega_lives
The most difficult part of flying an aircraft is the approach and landing. The second most dangerous point is take off. Both are critical due to 1. proximity to the ground, 2. low airspeed = lower wing lift.


Both alow for little room for error due to the time needed to react if anything goes wrong. Hanjor had to perform neither.

That said, acually manuvering a modern airliner is not that dificult with a little flight training, and may be surprisingly easy to do especially if you plan on NOT Landing.

You roll the aircraft and pull the stick back while increasing engine power to prevent loss of altitude. Not that hard to master once you know how the aircraft will react.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-11-09 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #58
59. Wrong
Hanjour did have to perform the approach, if not the landing, which was critical due to the proximity to the ground. So close to the ground, he actually clipped a car antenna, then crashed into the Pentagon without ever touching the ground.

That said, the entire flight would most likely have been beyond his limitations:

The rather diminutive Hanjour, sometime after take-off, fought his way into the cockpit, and wrestled control of Flight 77 from a 6'4" former Marine combat fighter pilot named Charles Burlingame, a man family members and colleagues say would never have given up his aircraft or the safety of his passengers. After dispatching with the co-pilot as well, Hanjour settled in and turned his attention to the bewildering array of gadgets and devices of a Boeing 757 instrument panel - a panel he was wholly unfamiliar with - in an airplane traveling 500 mph, 7 miles in the air, under the stress of a recently executed hijacking plot. Then, without the help of any ground control or air-traffic controllers providing him information and/or settings, this pilot who could not control a tiny Cessna 3 weeks earlier "would have to very quickly interpret his heading, ground track, altitude, and airspeed information on the displays before he could even figure out where in the world he was, much less where the Pentagon was located in relation to his position." (From the essay 'The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training', by Nila Sagadevan, an aeronautical engineer and pilot.)

From the Ohio/Kentucky border, Hanjour then supposedly turned the plane around, set course for Washigton D.C. hundreds of miles away, and successfully entered the most restricted airspace in the world without eliciting a single military intercept - despite the crash of two other known hijacked aircraft into the WTC, and a missing third, being covered on every radio and television station in the country. "In order to perform this bit of electronic navigation, he would have to be very familiar with (Instrument Flight Rules) procedures. None of these fellows (the alleged hijackers) even knew what a navigational chart looked like, or even how to plug frequencies into NAV/COM radios, much less input information into flight management computers (FMC) and engage LNAV (lateral navigation automated mode). If one is to believe the official story, all of this was supposedly accomplished by raw student pilots while flying blind at 500 MPH over unfamiliar (and practically invisible) terrain, using complex methodologies and employing sophisticated instruments."

According to the official account, an unidentified aircraft that somebody randomly decided was 'Flight 77' (remember, the transponder needed to identify the aircraft had been turned off) then suddenly pops up over Washington DC out of nowhere and executes an incredibly precise diving turn at a rate of 360 degrees/minute while descending at 3,500 ft/min, at the end of which "Hanjour" allegedly levels out at ground level. The maneuver was in fact so precisely executed that the air traffic controllers at Dulles refused to believe the blip on their screen was a commercial airliner. Danielle O'Brian, one of the air traffic controllers at Dulles who reported seeing the aircraft at 9:25 said, 'The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane.'" (ABC News, 10/24/2001, also archived at www.cooperativeresearch.org)

The official story of Hanjour's flight path continues in an even more bizarre narrative. Having successfully entered D.C. airspace, with no idea how soon fighter aircraft would show up to shoot him down, he finds himself pointed in the ideal direction toward the East wing of the Pentagon, where all the top brass in the military are known to be stationed. But then he apparently changes his mind as to his heading, and pulls off that incredible, sweeping 270-degree descending turn at 400+mph to approach the Pentagon from the opposite direction. There, he inexplicably lines up the less valued West wing, which was miraculously scheduled to receive the finishing touches of extensive bomb-blast retrofitting the next day, September 12, leaving it conveniently empty of most of its military employees. "The section known as Wedge 1 (the West Wing) had been under renovation and was scheduled for final completion on Wednesday, September 12th, 2001."


http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_14.htm

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-11-09 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #59
60. Let's say everything in your scenario is true (although it isn't)...
Edited on Sat Jul-11-09 12:28 PM by SDuderstadt
what do you think that proves? What are you getting at?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-11-09 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #60
61. Not true?
This is the scenario according to the OCT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-11-09 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #61
63. More bullshit....
Edited on Sat Jul-11-09 12:38 PM by SDuderstadt
how is something from the sources you cite with their heavy editorializing the "OCT"? Are you now saying that your sources are part of the "OCT"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-11-09 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #59
64. Approach for landing
was what Hanjour did not do. an approach is a careful decending, decelerating turn while maintaining enough airspeed to stay aloft.

It was the driving difference between smoothly and safely pulling into your garage and driving full speed into your the side of your house.

All the above matters to somone who expects to survive the event.

So what are you suggesting if you don't think Hanjour could have piloted the aircraft?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-11-09 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #55
62. I think you have the cart in front of the horse
Who deemed Hanjour "incompetent to fly alone" in 2001? Seems rather odd as Hanjour was "able to obtain his private pilot’s license". then after "several more months of training" he managed to receive a "commercial pilot certificate, issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in April 1999"

And what was he incompetent to fly. A piper, a jumbo jet. an F-16. None of that matters as (once again) being competent to fly an aircraft and being competent to crash an aircraft are two entirely different things. Please address that issue before continuing.


Please explain the difference to the observer of a precision executed maneuver and a maneuver out of desperation that appears to be skillful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-11-09 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #62
65. I don't think so
Edited on Sat Jul-11-09 04:26 PM by procopia
February 2001:

Mr. Hanjour, who investigators contend piloted the airliner that crashed into the Pentagon, was reported to the aviation agency in February 2001 after instructors at his flight school in Phoenix had found his piloting skills so shoddy and his grasp of English so inadequate that they questioned whether his pilot's license was genuine.
"I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon," the former (Phoenix Flight Academy) employee said. "He could not fly at all."
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/04/national/04ARIZ.html?ex=1134795600&en=449e5208868f5efa&ei=5070

August 2001:
At Freeway Airport in Bowie, Md., 20 miles west of Washington, flight instructor Sheri Baxter instantly recognized the name of alleged hijacker Hani Hanjour when the FBI released a list of 19 suspects in the four hijackings. Hanjour, the only suspect on Flight 77 the FBI listed as a pilot, had come to the airport one month earlier seeking to rent a small plane.

However, when Baxter and fellow instructor Ben Conner took the slender, soft-spoken Hanjour on three test runs during the second week of August, they found he had trouble controlling and landing the single-engine Cessna 172. Even though Hanjour showed a federal pilot's license and a log book cataloging 600 hours of flying experience, chief flight instructor Marcel Bernard declined to rent him a plane without more lessons.

http://web.archive.org/web/20031221013952/http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usflight232380680sep23.story

To say Hanjour needed only to be competent enough to "crash an aircraft" is vastly oversimplifying what (allegedly) happened.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-11-09 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #65
66. Again, where are you going with this?
If Hanjour didn't pilot the plane into the Pentagon, what do you claim happened?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-11-09 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #65
67. Basically your post tells us Hanjour
Edited on Sat Jul-11-09 05:33 PM by LARED
could fly a plane, but was lousy. Unless I'm mistaken we both agree.

So unless you can establish Hanjour was incapable of crashing a plane, you seem to be going in circles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-11-09 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #67
68. You are the one going in circles,
returning again to your claim that all Hanjour did was crash a plane. You are vastly oversimplifying what allegedly happened.

Your tactics are soooo transparent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-11-09 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #68
69. On what basis do you claim LARED is "vastly simplifying" this?
Your personal incredulity seems to be the only reason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-11-09 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #68
70. In what way am I oversimplifying what happened? - nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ohio Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-11-09 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #70
71. I think I see the "logic" procopia is using
The guy from PFA said Hanjour "Could not fly at all". With this comment, no room for anything else is given, procopia is convinced Hanjour had zero ability to fly and with this in hand, nothing can change her mind. Hanjour could not fly at ALL... PERIOD.

procopia also has an ATC that says "The maneuver was in fact so precisely executed that the air traffic controllers at Dulles refused to believe the blip on their screen was a commercial airliner". With this comment, again there is no room for anything else, what the ATC's saw could ONLY have been flown by someone with vast skill and expierence... PERIOD.

With these cherry picked quotes and a complete refusal to look at anything else, even the actual meaning behind the words, the "logic" can only mean the "OTC" is a lie.

Cherry picked quotes are the basis for much of the truth movement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-11-09 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #71
72. Exactly right, OJ....
cherry-picked literalism leaves little room for a actual reason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ohio Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-11-09 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #72
73. Look at the bright side...
None of the ATC guys said that it went down "like a bat out of hell", because then we would be debating if we had been attacked, literally, by the minions of hell on 9/11. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-11-09 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #71
75. HA
Sorry for "cherry picking", I guess I just missed all the quotes about Hanjour being an excellent pilot.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-11-09 11:39 PM
Response to Reply #75
76. You also missed the part where...
he didn't need to be an "excellent pilot" to slam the plane into a building that would be hard to miss.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-11-09 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #76
77. Says who?
Edited on Sat Jul-11-09 11:52 PM by procopia
A number of expert pilots have said they themselves couldn't have done that same maneuver.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-11-09 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #77
78. Umm, these pilots....
your claim is bullshit:

http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2006/05/19/askthepilot186/

http://www.911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf

I still can't tell where the fuck you're going with this, even if your claim were true...which it isn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-12-09 12:38 AM
Response to Reply #78
80. Mr. Name Withheld and Mr. Michael Last Name Withheld?
We don't know how knowledgeable these pilots are about 9/11 specifics. Their quotes are in very general terms regarding "the hijackers." Another of your sources is selling a book.

Expert pilots including:

"John Lear – Retired commercial airline pilot with over 19,000+ total hours flown in over 100 different types of planes for 10 different airlines in 60 different countries around the world. Flew for over 40 years. Holds every certificate ever offered by the FAA and has 23 different FAA type ratings. Held 17 world records including speed around the world in a Lear Jet Model 24, set in 1966. He was presented with the PATCO award for outstanding airmanship in 1968, and the Symons Wave memorial. Flight experience includes Boeing 707 and 727, McDonnell Douglas DC-8, Lockheed L-1011 and many others. Son of Bill Lear, founder of Lear Jet Corp."

say the OCT is a farce.

"Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force – Retired commercial pilot. Flew for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years. Aircraft flown: Boeing 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777. 30,000+ total hours flown. Had previously flown the actual two United Airlines aircraft that were hijacked on 9/11 (Flight 93, which impacted in Pennsylvania, and Flight 175, the second plane to hit the WTC). Former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions."--said this:

"I don't believe it's possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding -- pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's. And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it."

As you can see from Wittenberg's description, Hanjour's incredible approach maneuver has been misrepresented by those who described it as simply "slamming a plane into a big building."

Over 200 pilots and aviation professionals question the OCT here:
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.html


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-12-09 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #80
81. Typical "truther" dishonesty...
Edited on Sun Jul-12-09 12:46 AM by SDuderstadt
You cherry-pick what I provided to give the impression that no one was cited by name, which is demonstrably false as shown by the following names you left out:

Joe d'Eon

Giulio Bernacchia

Since you can't be honest about this, I think it's time to resume ignoring your "truther" rope-a-dope bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-12-09 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #81
88. Ah, a lecture about honesty
from the person who said this:

"he didn't need to be an "excellent pilot" to slam the plane into a building that would be hard to miss."

Blatantly false.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ohio Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-12-09 01:15 AM
Response to Reply #80
82. Interesting guys you got there
John Lear... The same one that believes in UFO's?

http://www.greatdreams.com/John-Lear.htm

Capt. Russ Wittenberg... The same one that believe a cruise missle hit the pentagon?

"The vehicle that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77. We think, as you may have heard before, it was a cruise missile."

http://aotearoaawiderperspective.wordpress.com/2008/06/26/im-in-excellent-company-meet-capt-russ-wittenberg-us-air-force/

and hawks time shares...

http://www.vacation-holiday.com/about.html

yeah... I'm buying that.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-12-09 07:37 AM
Response to Reply #82
84. I guess it's like being in a club
that wears weird hats at the meetings. No one in the club thinks it strange that grown men are sitting around a club wearing antler hats, but someone from the outside stepping into the club is thinking holy cow these guys are a bunch of odd balls.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ohio Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-12-09 08:19 AM
Response to Reply #84
85. Did you read the John Lear stuff?
"John Lear suspects that Venus does not have the sulfuric acid atmosphere with an 800 degree temperature that we've all been led to believe and instead is a planet very similar to ours, but with a similar, but much more technologically advanced civilization.

John Lear believes that the government has very good reasons for their continued coverup but refuses to discuss them.

He also believes that the government never, ever intends to released any UFO information and if forced to say anything, will obscure, tangle and weave a deceptive lie.

Asked outright if the public has a right to know these facts, John says, "No! They don't!"

Why?

"Because!" was his admittedly evasive answer."

AND... That is only the beginning, this guy is just totally gone. I find it wicked sad that people are using a guy that has obvious problems to hawk their CT's. He reminds me of my buddy Bill's Uncle Harold. Back in the early 80's, the poor guy started to get dementia. He would seem completely normal most of the time but was also convinced there was a casino at the bottom of a nearby lake and that everyone was against him because they kept stopping him from going there.

I'm sorry but... using this poor guy like this is just shameful, he does not deserve it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-12-09 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #82
89. Couldn't address their points?
Your post is a classic illustration of Bush/Rovian tactics used by those who can offer no rebuttal of the issue at hand. The OCT must be false because George Bush believes he was chosen by God. See how easy that is?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ohio Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-12-09 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #89
91. And you have to pull out the "you support bush" truther tactic?
The dude is disturbed, he believes that venus is just like earth and has a civilization. Read the link, addressing the ramblings of someone that is no longer sane is pointless. Why can't the truth movement find someone that is still sane to promote their cause?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-12-09 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #91
92. Not exactly
Edited on Sun Jul-12-09 05:15 PM by procopia
I was simply illustrating how easy it is to supposedly discredit someone. Bush/Rove did it all the time. It can be done with anyone. There are 200+ pilots and aviation professionals at my link. See how many you can discredit ala Bush/Rove tactics.

Oh, btw, are you a Christian?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ohio Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-12-09 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #92
97. A second time insinuating I am a bush supporter
One only has to google his name, thats all I did. There are a crap load of sites taking advantage of the guy and it gets weirder and weirder as you go along. There is no "supposedly" about it. Go to google and try it yourself.

It is not like I even went looking for dirt on the guy, I had never heard of him before. Personally, I do not take quotes by people I've never heard of at face value, I go find out who they are. Are you claiming this guy does not believe what I have posted, it is backed up at my link, if it is not enough there are plenty more that say the same and more. Would you like me to get them?

Unless, you do not consider it discrediting because you also feel these things are true, is that what you think?


"Oh, btw, are you a Christian?"

You really seem to love the insinuations. I am an atheist. There is much information on me at DU, I am unashamed of who I am, what I believe or what I don't. Take a look around DU, I like to post here, GD, the lounge, the gaming group and the LGBT Civil Rights and Activism group, also sometimes LBN and on rare occasion a little in some of the other forums. I don't hide and please... Notify the mods should you suspect I or any other DU'er support bush, the mods will give them (or me) the pizza they deserve but quick. I think it would move the debate along much quicker then you having to type them out and me having to address them... again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-13-09 06:16 AM
Response to Reply #97
98. OK then
maybe I should have asked if you think Christians' beliefs are so kooky that their opinions on everything else should be disregarded? You don't know what Lear bases his speculations on, and whether it sounds kooky to you or not, it's something, like religion, that can't be proven or disproven and is irrelevant to this issue. Lear has certainly proven himself in the field of aviation. That is all that matters for this discussion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ohio Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-13-09 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #98
105. Are you serious?
Mr. Lear thinks there are alien cities on the moon... go buy a freakin telescope. And yes... I do think that the fundy christians beliefs are so kooky their other opinions should be disregarded, in fact, I rage against them daily. I fight against their discrimination against gays, their anti-science stance and their general attempts to take over our government... which they have been pretty good at doing.

You don't hesitate to try and make a connection between those that do not buy the tinfoil and bush but we do nothing but distance ourselves from him, he is a douchbag criminal that belongs in jail. I can't tell you how sorry I am that we agree one this issue, the last thing I want to do is agree with that asshole on anything and I NEVER use him to back up anything I believe. But... you want people to ignore that your using a person that is obviously disturbed because you share one common belief. Sorry but you really should get someone that still has control of their mind to be your authority.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-12-09 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #80
86. That's unfortunate
Quite a few well credentialed individuals have for what ever reason decided the events of Sept 11, 2001 were not what the seem. I am convinced with further analysis of actual information some individuals may come around. Some, however have their minds made up.

Most of these opinons are influnced by polictial viewpoints rather than by logicical reasoning. If I were a "truther" I would certainly use Capt. Wittenberg's testimony to bolster my argument.

The thing is we could find former Airforce/commercial pilots to directly refute what Capt. Wittenberg is claiming.

heres one pilot's analysis:

http://www.911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-12-09 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #86
87. Excellent link, well worth the read
Should be required reading for all CT'ers
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-12-09 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #86
90. Unfortunate for Bush et al.
Edited on Sun Jul-12-09 04:55 PM by procopia
that some folks think for themselves. Remember, Bush said not to tolerate that!

"Most of these opinons are influnced by polictial viewpoints..."

I agree, that's true of both sides.

"rather than by logicical reasoning."

Logical reasoning is in the mind of the beholder.

I'm not surprised that "you could find" someone to refute Wittenberg. But Wittenberg is not alone in his opinion, and some experienced pilots have actually tried to duplicate Hanjour's maneuver in a simulator, finding it extremely difficult or impossible.

Even your own "debunker" said this:

"Hanjour was very lucky in his nefarious endeavour, because a pilot of his experience, allowed to try multiple instances of the same manoeuvre, would have a very high failure rate." - Giulio Bernacchia, Italian Airline Pilot

So ultimately that leaves you with an admittedly lousy pilot performing a very difficult, some say impossible, maneuver. It's one dubious claim among many in the OCT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-12-09 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #90
94. Im impressed
you actually read it?

So ultimately that leaves you with an admittedly lousy pilot performing a very difficult, some say impossible, maneuver.


those who know knows history is full of cases like these.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-12-09 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #94
95. The OCT
itself is full of cases like this. In fact, it consists totally of cases like this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-12-09 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #95
96. It is quite amazing what a small group of determined individuals can accomplish
what history shows is that while the action is often the easy part...the cover up is nearly impossible.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-13-09 06:31 AM
Response to Reply #96
99. The 9/11 cover up is obvious
to those who are not suffering from cognitive dissonance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-13-09 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #99
109. You will just have to trust me
16 years in public service including incident response/recovery/command.

I am not suffereing from congnitive dissonance.

Any cover of a plot by elements of the US Government to murder US Citizens on 9-11 is simple fantasy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-13-09 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #99
110. If it is "so obvious" then you would be able to develop...
concrete proof of it. The fact that you can't is the dead giveaway that there is less than meets the eye to the "9/11 truth movement".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ohio Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-12-09 12:35 AM
Response to Reply #75
79. You prove my point so excellently
Why does he need to be an excellent pilot?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-12-09 07:34 AM
Response to Reply #75
83. And this strawman is supposed to explain how
Hanjour was unable to crash into the Pentagon how?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ardent15 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-10-09 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #28
44. History Commons is garbage
They report anything..and I mean ANYTHING-that remotely favors the view that 9/11 was an inside job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-10-09 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #44
46. History Commons doesn't "report"
It is a timeline of documented news stories relating to various events. Entries are submitted by account holders. You or anyone can register and submit entries from documented sources.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ohio Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-11-09 08:55 PM
Response to Original message
74. oh, and another reason this is a steaming pile of shit
So... the American instructors, the guy who did not speak english as a native language had, thought he spoke english poorly. Yet, the one instructor that also did not have english as a native language, thought he did fine.

Is this really a shock?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-12-09 05:33 PM
Response to Original message
93. You know somtimes I forget
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-13-09 06:43 AM
Response to Reply #93
100. Sometimes you forget
that each person had value? That's what the truth movement is all about. Whatever you think about the no-planes theory, you don't know what happened. As much as you think you do, you don't know what happened. If you are so fucking broken hearted for each person, then don't you think there should be a real investigation with subpoena power?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-13-09 07:49 AM
Response to Reply #100
101. More ''truther'' bullshit...
the 9/11 Commission DID have subpoena power as I have shown repeatedly here. Your red herring claims are very silly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-13-09 08:32 AM
Response to Reply #101
102. Would you stop with the vitriol?
Edited on Mon Jul-13-09 08:43 AM by procopia
Don't pretend the 9/11 Commission was a genuine attempt to seek the truth. Even former commissioners themselves admit that it wasn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-13-09 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #102
103. But it's simply not true that it didn't have "subpoena powers"...
I don't have a problem when you post accurate criticism of the Commission. But, I'm going to call you on it when you post bullshit like this. I have never said the Commission was perfect but, at the same time, you misrepresent things various members have said to make it appear they didn't try to do a good job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-13-09 09:00 AM
Response to Reply #103
104. I said the truth
The 9/11 Commission was not a "real" investigation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-13-09 09:13 AM
Response to Reply #104
106. In your opinion...
but your claim that it had no subpoena powers is simply untrue. Nice try to charge the subject though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-13-09 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #106
107. I didn't "charge" the subject
I said we need a real investigation with subpoena power. You brought up the 9/11 Commission yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-13-09 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #107
108. For the last fucking time, the 9/11 Commission DID have subpoena power...
and exercised it. You just didn't like the outcome, which is your right. But, to charge or imply it wasn't a "real" investigation is simply not true. Have you even read the 9/11 Commission Report? As the staff notes and supporting materials become available, are you reading those too? I take exception to your characterizing the efforts of Hamilton, Kerrey, Roemer, Gorelick and Ben-Veniste as "not a real investigation".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-13-09 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #108
111. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-13-09 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #111
115. "don't you think there should be a real investigation with subpoena power?"
Are those not your words? Are you denying that you are, at the least, leaving the reader with the impression that the 9/11 Commission was not a "real investigation" because it DIDN'T have subpoena power? Please answer honestly here. Until I pointed it out, did you even know that the 9/11 Commission not only HAD subpoena power but, also, exercised it?

No one is saying that it could not have been done better as there is ALWAYS room for improvement but, like it or not, they got it pretty much right. Could you please detail for us specifically what you believe they got wrong and why?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-13-09 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #104
113. The 9/11C was far from perfect
It avoided casting blame for the lapse in leadership and accountability. AFATG it was a "cover up" in that respect.

What YOU and others want is a RESULT not a new investigation, based on a false perception of what constitues evidence of conspiracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-13-09 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #100
112. Bullshit
That is NOT what the truth movement is all about. Hell many of the "truth movemnt" deny these passengers even existed, that they made phone calls to loved ones, that some of them fought for their lives.

And that is not what I said I forget.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-13-09 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #112
114. I meant
the truth movement is about all the victims of 9/11. Don't you think there should be justice for them, including a real investigation with subpoena power?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-13-09 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #114
116. You just fucking did it again....
including a real investigation with subpoena power?


Are you claiming the 9/11 Commission did NOT have subpoena power?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-13-09 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #114
117. Sorry
but I don't beleive that what the truth movement is all about.

Perhaps it is in your case, I have no reason to doubt that it is...but certainly NOT the movment in general.

I would love to hear who you think would conduct this "real investigation"? Alex Jones? Kevin Barret?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-13-09 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #117
118. I'm sorry too,
because I don't believe 9/11 victims are "devalued" by the no-planes argument. I agree with Daniel Sunjata:

"It is the very height of disingenuity to suggest that by demanding truth and accountability one is somehow offending and dishonoring the victims or their families, when the only way to honor them is by finding out the truth and holding the guilty parties responsible for their crimes."--Daniel Sunjata
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-13-09 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #118
119. Are you claiming that Sunjata is a "no-planer"?
Or, are you just co-opting his statement to fit your purposes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 11:09 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC