Reply With Quote
Flying without transponders, navigation, and a guy who learned to fly small wing aircraft that's still an amazing feat.
Unless of course the building is so wide and dominant of the surrounding scenery that you can see if miles away, especially from a 100-200 feet in the air.
Does the pentagon fit that description dan?
Flying without transponders, navigation, and a guy who learned to fly small wing aircraft that's still an amazing feat.
Looking at the flight path, it's quite likely that they saw the 29 acre building when they were 3.5 miles away from it at 7000-8000 ft before looping around again to lose al ue and lining up for the final approach.
What do you mean no navigation? They used the autopilot until they were 35 miles out. These guys weren't good pilots, but they weren't completely ignorant of the controls of airliners. I've provided links with airline pilots saying it was very possible for these pilots to do what they did with their reported level of training. What do you have to dispute them?
Actually, there's evidence he hit a little short and skidded into the Pentagon. With a visibility near limitless, there was little chance of overshooting the building -- even at better than 500mph.
What would have been hard for anyone but an experienced pilot to do, would be to "lawn dart" the thing into the "Ground Zero" kiosk in the Pentagon courtyard.
And, as for difficulty in flying an airliner, if you're not trying for a smooth landing, pretty much anyone -- with basic flight lessons -- who takes over in flight, could have achieved what was done with American Flight #77 as long as they had two arms and two feet and weren't yanking the controls.
There is a lot of evidence out there that Hani Hanjour was a very bad pilot...
NewsdayAt 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.
In the spring of 2000, Hanjour had asked to enroll in the CRM Airline Training Center in Scottsdale, Ariz., for advanced training, said the center's attorney, Gerald Chilton Jr. Hanjour had attended the school for three months in late 1996 and again in December 1997 but never finished coursework for a license to fly a single-engine aircraft, Chilton said.
When Hanjour reapplied to the center last year, "We declined to provide training to him because we didn't think he was a good enough student when he was there in 1996 and 1997" Chilton said
ScoopOn December 12, 2000, [Nawaf al Hazmi and Hani Hanjour] were settling in Mesa, Arizona, and Hanjour was ready to brush up on his flight training. Brush up? He could barely fly a Cessna. By early 2001, he was using a Boeing 737 simulator. Because his performance struck his flight instructors as sub-standard, they discouraged Hanjour from continuing, but he persisted.
Washington PostBut just as the plane seemed to be on a suicide mission into the White House, the unidentified pilot [Hanjour] executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver. The plane circled 270 degrees to the right to approach the Pentagon from the west, whereupon Flight 77 fell below radar level, vanishing from controllers' screens, the sources said.
Less than an hour after two other jets demolished the World Trade Center in Manhattan, Flight 77 carved a hole in the nation's defense headquarters, a hole five stories high and 200 feet wide.
Aviation sources said the plane was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm, possibly one of the hijackers. Someone even knew how to turn off the transponder, a move that is considerably less than obvious.
I would not hire Hanjour as an airline pilot. But thanks for admitting he was familiar with airliner controls since he worked with simulators.
And again, is it really that difficult to see a 29 acre building from the air?
"On a Metro train to National Airport, Allen Cleveland looked out the window to see a jet heading down toward the Pentagon. 'I thought, "There's no landing strip on that side of the subway tracks,"' he said. Before he could process that thought, he saw 'a huge mushroom cloud. The lady next to me was in absolute hysterics.'"
- "Our Plane Is Being Hijacked." Washington Post, 12 Sep 2001
"I was supposed to have been going to the Pentagon Tuesday morning at about 11:00am (EDT) and was getting ready, and thank goodness I wasn't going to be going until later. It was so shocking, I was listening to the news on what had happened in New York, and just happened to look out the window because I heard a low flying plane and then I saw it hit the Pentagon. It happened so fast... it was in the air one moment and in the building the next..."
- "U.S. Under Attack: Your Eyewitness Accounts." BBC News, 14 Sep 2001
"As I approached the Pentagon, which was still not quite in view, listening on the radio to the first reports about the World Trade Center disaster in New York, a jetliner, apparently at full throttle and not more than a couple of hundred yards above the ground, screamed overhead. ... Seconds before the Pentagon came into view a huge black cloud of smoke rose above the road ahead. I came around the bend and there was the Pentagon billowing smoke, flames and debris, blackened on one side and with a gaping hole where the airplane had hit it."
- "Eyewitness at the Pentagon." Human Events, 17 Sep 2001
"Frank Probst, an information management specialist for the Pentagon Renovation Program, left his office trailer near the Pentagon's south parking lot at 9:36 a.m. Sept. 11. Walking north beside Route 27, he suddenly saw a commercial airliner crest the hilltop Navy Annex. American Airlines Flight 77 reached him so fast and flew so low that Probst dropped to the ground, fearing he'd lose his head to its right engine."
- "A Defiant Recovery." The Retired Officer Magazine, January 2002
"USAToday.com Editor Joel Sucherman saw it all: an American Airlines jetliner fly left to right across his field of vision as he commuted to work Tuesday morning. It was highly unusual. The large plane was 20 feet off the ground and a mere 50 to 75 yards from his windshield. Two seconds later and before he could see if the landing gear was down or any of the horror-struck faces inside, the plane slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon 100 yards away. 'My first thought was he's not going to make it across the river to [Reagan] National Airport. But whoever was flying the plane made no attempt to change direction,' Sucherman said. 'It was coming in at a high rate of speed, but not at a steep angle—almost like a heat-seeking missile was locked onto its target and staying dead on course.'"
- "Journalist Witnesses Pentagon Crash." eWeek.com, 13 Sep 2001
Are all these people lying?
Are these guys paid by the government?
This actually jives with the witness descriptions that it hit a little shy.
So... every passenger on Flight 77 was killed by the goverenment to cover it up, plus the couple hundred witnesses on Interstate 395. Also, I know most Americans are dumb, but most people can tell the difference between a 53 meter long aircraft with wings and a 5.5 meter long cruise missile with stubs, no pit, window, ect. Not to mention that aircraft don't leave huge trails of visible exaust.
This is one of the weakest points in the conspiracy, the one people seem most reluctant to back.
Also as a random sidenote, I image nearly anyone here on SpursTalk could fly an aircraft into the pentagon with no experience. It only takes a few minutes at the controls before you have a feel of your speed and such. Yeah, the thing can be going 500 mph, but it really isn't that fast in comparison to your visibility.
If there is an evil conspiracy, and they put out obviously false evidence for most to find, then anybody who believes all the "evidence" is either not intelligent enough to figure out that the fake stuff IS fake, or lying about what they believe in order to spread the disinformation.
IF you believe all the conspiracy crap AND there actually IS an evil conspiracy, then you are either stupid or part of that conspiracy, and by definition, evil.
If there ISN'T an evil conspiracy, then you can't be evil (because you can't be part of a conspiracy that doesn't exist), but you CAN be stupid.
THEREFORE
IF you believe ALL the conspiracy evidence you MUST fall into one of two categories:
1) Stupid
2) Lying and evil.
i think NASCAR was behind 9/11. it was around that time they started showing it on fox sundays, and what could boost ratings more than trying to inject patriotism into the country. HuGE conspiracy!
Can anyone tell me the seating capacities of all three aircraft and how many people were actually, officially, on each flight?
Can you not look that up yourself?
You can try it for yourself on any flight simulation program, it's not that easy to hit a 110 story building much less a 5 story one.
I already know.
Maybe I should rephrase that to make it easier to get an actual response.And again, is it really that difficult to see a 29 acre building from the air?
Is it really that difficult to see a 29 acre building that you have flown within 4 miles of once already and know is situated on the Potomac River one mile northwest of a major international airport and at the confluence of two major roads, one of which provides a near straight line guide into a side of the 29 acre building?
I already know the answer to my question about the 29 acre building's being difficult to see.
Are you going to answer that one?
Have you tried to hit a five story building that covers 29 acres?
The story...
Another problem in the official account is that, although we are told that four or five of the alleged hijackers were on each of the four flights, no proof of this claim has been provided. The story, of course, is that they did not force their way onto the planes but were regular, ticketed passengers. If so, their names should be on the flight manifests. But the flight manifests that have been released contain neither the names of the alleged hijackers nor any other Arab names...
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006...fin30mar06.htm
Our take...
There are several arguments used to advance the “no hijackers on the passenger manifests” case, but they’re not nearly as definitive as their proponents like to pretend. David Ray Griffin’s assertion above, for instance, is footnoted with this explanation:
The flight manifest for AA 11 that was published by CNN can be seen at http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/tra...1.victims.html. The manifests for the other flights can be located by simply changing that part of the URL. The manifest for UA 93, for example, is at http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/tra...3.victims.html .
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006...fin30mar06.htm
There’s an obvious clue here in the URL, which tells us it’s a “victims” list. Is it really surprising that the suspected hijackers wouldn’t be included? And in fact if you look on the site you’ll find CNN specifically say those names have been left out.
Further, the CNN lists aren’t an official manifest anyway. They were compiled from press reports, not names obtained directly from the airlines. We’ve more on this here.
When we’ve made this point, a common response has been: why? Why did CNN have to cobble together a list in this way, why didn’t they get the details direct from the airlines? Look at what one of the airlines says, though, and there’s an obvious answer: a UAL press release says that “At the request of the victims' families, a number of names have been withheld from release”. The same press release does list many passenger names, however (see here or here).
If the airlines wanted to contact family members before releasing names, then this would also explain why the hijackers details would be held back. It would plainly take longer to get in touch with citizens of other countries, than the families of Americans.
At least one newspaper reported that it had obtained the manifests from the two planes hijacked from Boston, though, and the hijackers did appear on the lists. They even printed their seat numbers. See the details here.
This early release of information tends to be ignored, though, in favour of other evidence showing “no Arab names on the passenger lists”. One commonly-quoted example was produced by Thomas Olmsted, who filed a Freedom of Information Act Request for the names of the Flight 77 victims. A list eventually arrived which did not include the names of hijackers, which he claimed indicated that they were not aboard (see an article here). But he’s wrong. Here’s why.
Olmsted also tries to compare his list with the CNN list to show there are inconsistencies. And that doesn’t stand up, either.
Further, journalist and author Terry McDermott reports that he obtained passenger lists from the FBI while researching a book, and they did contain the hijackers names. Read more details and see the full lists here.
And the complete passenger lists have subsequently been released as part of an exhibit at the Moussaoui trial, where a Flash applet details exactly who sat where, who made phone calls, and more. We’ve uploaded it to this page, though beware, in total these are more than 15MB in size so you’ll need a broadband connection.
http://www.911myths.com/html/no_hija...manifests.html
Ok guys, I apologize ahead of time.
I am going to post some big ass gifs.
SORRY SORRY SORRY.
um at the top of the next page.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions