Reply With Quote
not to mention, how did they know how and when to turn off the transponders and how this would confuse civilian air traffic controllers long enough for them to deviate from their flight plans without being noticed? hmmmm....
Those guys that allegedly hijacked the airplanes trained on cessnas. The planes used compared to what they were trained on is apples to oranges. About the only thing the two have in common is they both fly. Now to the y stuff...cessnas do not have the sophisticated navigational equipment used on boeings...how did the alleged hijackers know how to fly the planes with no knowledge of the cordinates of thier targets, let alone washington dc and new york the perfect direction to fly from hundreds of miles out, and then hit buildings with on one attempt.
(please dont reply with the ignorant statement of "well it happened")
Last edited by The_Worlds_finest; 04-14-2007 at 12:03 AM.
not to mention, how did they know how and when to turn off the transponders and how this would confuse civilian air traffic controllers long enough for them to deviate from their flight plans without being noticed? hmmmm....
Wouldn't it be great if we could ask an airline pilot about this?
Oh, someone did....
As I've explained in at least one prior column, Hani Hanjour's flying was hardly the show-quality demonstration often described. It was exceptional only in its recklessness. If anything, his loops and turns and spirals above the nation's capital revealed him to be exactly the ty pilot he by all accounts was. To hit the Pentagon squarely he needed only a bit of luck, and he got it, possibly with help from the 757's autopilot. Striking a stationary object -- even a large one like the Pentagon -- at high speed and from a steep angle is very difficult. To make the job easier, he came in obliquely, tearing down light poles as he roared across the Pentagon's lawn.
It's true there's only a vestigial similarity between the pit of a light trainer and the flight deck of a Boeing. To put it mildly, the attackers, as private pilots, were completely out of their league. However, they were not setting out to perform single-engine missed approaches or Category 3 instrument landings with a failed hydraulic system. For good measure, at least two of the terrorist pilots had rented simulator time in jet aircraft, but striking the Pentagon, or navigating along the Hudson River to Manhattan on a cloudless morning, with the sole intention of steering head-on into a building, did not require a mastery of airmanship. The perpetrators had purchased manuals and videos describing the flight management systems of the 757/767, and as any desktop simulator enthusiast will tell you, elementary operation of the planes' navigational units and autopilots is chiefly an exercise in data programming. You can learn it at home. You won't be good, but you'll be good enough.
"They'd done their homework and they had what they needed," says a United Airlines pilot (name withheld on request), who has flown every model of Boeing from the 737 up. "Rudimentary knowledge and fearlessness."
"As everyone saw, their flying was sloppy and aggressive," says Michael (last name withheld), a pilot with several thousand hours in 757s and 767s. "Their skills and experience, or lack thereof, just weren't relevant."
"The hijackers required only the shallow understanding of the aircraft," agrees Ken Hertz, an airline pilot rated on the 757/767. "In much the same way that a person needn't be an experienced physician in order to perform CPR or set a broken bone."
That sentiment is echoed by Joe d'Eon, airline pilot and host of the "Fly With Me" podcast series. "It's the difference between a doctor and a butcher," says d'Eon.
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/...86/index1.html
That was easy. Why didn't you guys google that yourselves if you wanted to know the truth so badly?
Oh my goodness, Chump, you ruined the thread. How can
you have a good conspiracy theory when you keep interjecting
facts. Just stop it!
LOL.
Screw the facts.
Oh good God. This again?
I love how these conspiracy nimrods believe that the current administration could pull off a monumental conspiracy such as 9-11 (that would involve hundreds of people keeping their mouths shut), yet they weren't even smart enough to plant the smoking gun WMD's they would've needed to justify invading Iraq.
Morons. This country is full of morons. Hate to break it to you halfwits, but a conspiracy that big just isn't possible. It would involve too many people. SOMEBODY would've spilled the beans by now!
Pull your heads out of your assess and get over this 9-11 conspiracy crap.
Last edited by IceColdBrewski; 04-14-2007 at 01:00 PM.
How do we know it was Bush. It could have been the JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSOh good God. This again?
I love how these conspiracy nimrods believe that the current administration could pull off a monumental conspiracy such as 9-11 (that would involve hundreds of people keeping their mouths shut), yet they weren't even smart enough to plant the smoking gun WMD's they would've needed to justify invading Iraq.
Morons. This country is full of morons. Hate to break it to you halfwits, but a conspiracy that big just isn't possible. It would involve too many people. SOMEBODY would've spilled the beans by now!
Pull your heads out of your assess and get over this 9-11 conspiracy crap.
"a conspiracy that big just isn't possible"
Agreed, but a much smaller conspiracy of inaction among WHIG/Exec prior to 9/11 is very credible. The inaction was ignoring the chatter of summer 2001, hoping the terrorists would attack USA interests, handing PNAC/neo- s a totally bogus pretext (Saddam = terrorist) for going after the Iraqi oil, among all the other lies the WH told to get into Iraq.
Now we see the WH prolonging the failed Iraqi occupation to no effect, other than trying to delay withdrawal after Jan 2009, to save the WH's own legacy by making it easier to slime the next (very probaby Dem) administration with "losing Iraq". Such cynicism is certainly consistent with hoping terrorists would attack back in 2001.
If so, this vast conspiracy would involve the Clinton administration as well. Because the the terrorists responsible for 9-11 slipped into this country under Bubba's watch.
But wait, let me guess. That was because of all the "Repugs" in Washington during Clinton's term. Right?
clinton had a chance to get him
so did reagan and bush 1
we totally made bin laden
I hate stupid people.Those guys that allegedly hijacked the airplanes trained on cessnas. The planes used compared to what they were trained on is apples to oranges. About the only thing the two have in common is they both fly. Now to the y stuff...cessnas do not have the sophisticated navigational equipment used on boeings...how did the alleged hijackers know how to fly the planes with no knowledge of the cordinates of thier targets, let alone washington dc and new york the perfect direction to fly from hundreds of miles out, and then hit buildings with on one attempt.
"terrorists responsible for 9-11 slipped into this country under Bubba's watch."
Have we ever heard that Clinton's Exec heard, and ignored, the chatter in 2000 that dubya's Exec heard loudly, clearly, incessantly in 2001?
Clinton was aware of the al-Quaida threat and tried, however ineffectively, to take him out.
OTOH, there is not a sliver of evidence, offered by the WH nor found by 9/11 Commission, that the 2001 Repug Exec paid any attention whatsoever to al-Quaida.
The only defense the defenders of the Repugs offer is not that the Repugs did a good job, but that it's all Clinton's fault, as if if the Repugs were totolly forced by Clinton TO DO NOTHING about terrorism between Jan - Sep 2001.
The Repugs were intentionally asleep at the NatSec, in flagrant dereliction of NatSec duty. Condi was a bad a NatSec director as she is a Sec of State. Incompetence and loyalty rule, in every area, in the dubya/ head era.
Well, at least you're finally admitting that Bin Laden was the one who really orchestrated the whole thing insted of playing your little conspiracy games.
Exactly. It was all because of the "repugs."
Thanks for proving me right.
"It was all because of the "repugs." "
Exactly, from Jan 2001 to 9/11, it was all on the Repugs, and they blew it. Go read the 9/11 Commission report.
Even emascualted as it was by the WH, the Report points out many security actions the Repugs DIDN'T take prior to 9/11.
I'm not convinced that 9/11 could have been avoided by either a Bush or Gore administration with the possible exception of repeated missle strikes on the Afghan training camps. Still, there are very clear differences in the way the Bin Laden issue was treated by the Clinton and Bush White Houses, leading one to conclude that one administration saw the threat as far more serious than the other saw it.
"terrorists responsible for 9-11 slipped into this country under Bubba's watch."
Have we ever heard that Clinton's Exec heard, and ignored, the chatter in 2000 that dubya's Exec heard loudly, clearly, incessantly in 2001?
what are you talking about? who knows what responsibility he had?, yeah he was a terrorist, head of al queda, he was also a known cia operative, they dont even know the iden ies of the hijackers
also
I NEVER SAID WHO ORCHESTRATED THE ATTACKS, ever in any thread
boutons, you mean like all the good information given
by the Clinton admin, you know Sandy Burglar.
Am I the only one who is watching Fox news. Bush
admin needs to be hung for not hanging Burglar.
Cant we just get along can only go so far.
Mainly Richard Clarke and George Tenent, the guys Bush saw fit to keep from the Clinton administration.boutons, you mean like all the good information given
by the Clinton admin, you know Sandy Burglar.
Hey. You were the one who brought up Bin Laden in this thread. Why? Because you thought he had nothing to do with it?
If you are curious about the hijackers, I invite you to listen to reporter Terry McDermott, who spent quite a bit of time researching their lives.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4630481
You don't even have to read....
I don't think he can.You don't even have to read..
I just find it odd that folk will take a two-minute video sequence, the word of three guys with some editing equipment in their homes, as gospel and not even think of inquiring about a veteran reporter who spent a couple of years travelling to over twenty countries actually investigating nothing but the iden ies and lives of the hijackers.
"If you think those guys came into the country under Bush,"
I didn't say they did.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
