Thread: 9/11 was an inside job

Originally Posted by jamescollister

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by jamescollister

Outside of the grand conspiracy, there was an Intel break down, why did the hijackers train in the US.
If they wanted to keep under the intelligence radar, why not train in some other country.

Do you realise how many Arab carriers send their pilots to learn to fly in the US? And that's not counting people who want to go and get their PPL.

It's called hiding in plain sight (excuse the pun).

What is of more concern is that the intelligence that was gathered from discrete sources was never actually put together - a lot of people think that was by choice.

Don't know how many Arabs train in the US, but think most would be from airlines, not private individuals.
Think that alone should have raised a few Intel suspicions, why would you want to learn and pay to learn to fly a passenger jet if you ddn't have a job as a pilot.
Can understand people going to learn to fly, but not a Boeing.

Call me skeptical perhaps. Jim

Anyone can buy time on a simulator, even you.

All I know is that the full faith and credit of the US government would never, ever Lie to you. Right?

Originally Posted by jamescollister

Can understand people going to learn to fly, but not a Boeing.

They trained in Cessnas and the like, didn't they ?

How Hard Is It to Fly a 757 or 767?

Reporter :

Dr. Todd Curtis at the controls of a
full motion 757 simulator


"In the wake of the attacks at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, it is clear that one of the key factors in the success of those attacks is that at least one member of each of the four teams of hijackers was a trained pilot. While there is some question as to the amount of flying expertise possessed these these hijackers, there is no indication that any of them had the level of experience or qualifications of an airline pilot. Whatever their level of expertise, it was sufficient to guide three of the four hijacked planes to their targets, causing the deaths of thousands.

Many people have wondered how it could be possible for relatively unskilled pilots to do this. This writer is in a unique position to answer that question. I am a licensed pilot of very limited experience, with just under 100 hours in small, single- engine training aircraft such as the Cessna 172. A few years ago, I had the opportunity to take a short course on the 757 that included classroom training, individual computer based training, and about five hours in a full-motion simulator. This high fidelity simulator was the same kind of that airline pilots use in their initial training or to simulate a wide range of emergency procedures.

After about a week of training, I was familiar with the layout of the flight deck and with the operation of the flight controls, autopilot, and navigation systems. As a result, flying the simulator was much less difficult than I had imagined at the beginning of the course. The most difficult part of the simulator training was takeoffs and landings. On the other hand, flying the aircraft in other phases of flight was relatively easy, even compared to flying a Cessna 172. Changing the aircraft's course, speed, or altitude was not very difficult when using either the autopilot system or when flying the aircraft manually. The flight control system made the aircraft rather responsive and made it easy to perform normal flying manuvers.

Given my experiences in the simulator, I feel that if I were to be put into a 757's cockpit in the middle of a flight on a relatively clear and sunny day, I would be able to change direction and altitude without any trouble. Given a basic knowledge of a region's geography and of available navigational aids, I would also be able to navigate well enough that I could find a major city and fly the aircraft to any major landmark in that city. Because the basic cockpit layout and many of the procedures used in the 757 are almost identical to those of the 767, I feel that the same would be true for a 767.

In short, I believe that any person who has earned a private pilot's license and who has access to the same kind of ground school and simulator training that I received could fly a 757 or 767 well enough to hit a large building. Given the wide availability of this kind of training, it would appear that the kind of terrorist actions that took place in New York and Washington could easily be repeated in the future."

Flying A 757/767 Was Quite Easy For Wtc Terrorists — Civil Aviation Forum | Airliners.net

Originally Posted by Latindancer

In short, I believe that any person who has earned a private pilot's license and who has access to the same kind of ground school and simulator training that I received could fly a 757 or 767 well enough to hit a large building.

Speaking as a glider pilot, flying into WTC would be as difficult as falling off a log. Pentagon however- impact point 12 feet off the ground or so(?)- much more difficult proposition.

Originally Posted by sabang

Originally Posted by Latindancer

In short, I believe that any person who has earned a private pilot's license and who has access to the same kind of ground school and simulator training that I received could fly a 757 or 767 well enough to hit a large building.

Speaking as a glider pilot, flying into WTC would be as difficult as falling off a log. Pentagon however- impact point 12 feet off the ground or so(?)- much more difficult proposition.

He didn't have to fly in that low that's just how it ended up happening, it's certain he didn't plan it that way, more likely he was almost short.

Originally Posted by Latindancer

I didn't melt down in the "valve" thread.....a few dogs (mainly Willy and ENT) tried to drag me down.
If you want to make a fool of yourself by coming here and stating that "facts are pointless" and admitting that you haven't even followed the 9/11 threads, it's up to you.
You've criticized us for not looking at the evidence (we have, actually), yet you say that your only evidence is a deep distrust of government statements.
You are a comical and silly person, Butterfly.

In the VALVE THREAD.....you made an a*se of yourself.

Originally Posted by Latindancer

In short, I believe that any person who has earned a private pilot's license and who has access to the same kind of ground school and simulator training that I received could fly a 757 or 767 well enough to hit a large building. Given the wide availability of this kind of training, it would appear that the kind of terrorist actions that took place in New York and Washington could easily be repeated in the future."

Flying A 757/767 Was Quite Easy For Wtc Terrorists — Civil Aviation Forum | Airliners.net

[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

What...at 500+ mph ASL?????

Originally Posted by FloridaBorn

Originally Posted by leemo

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by Latindancer

Oh, RIGHT.
Recently you posted that "the facts are pointless", and now you virtually admit that you haven't followed what we have been debating about the Pentagon incident.

Yet you come here and make silly, pig-headed statements.

you have a history of making silly statements, should I remind you of your silly "valve" non-sense meltdown ? there is nothing to be followed or debated with that kind of non-sense,

a plane couldn't have hit the Pentagon, that's a given, it's simply impossible. What hit the Pentagon ? we can't say really, but we suspect a missile. You want to believe in fairy tales and make a clown of yourself by trying to promote the government official story, it's up to you, but I am not having a debate with a loon who believe that kind of non-sense. I would like to remind you have not question not ONE line of the official story. That alone speaks volume of your so called critical thinking state of mind.

Why do you only 'suspect' a missile hit the Pentagon. If it wasn't a plane I can't think of anything other than a missile.

Perhaps it was a missile dressed up as the plane that people saw hit the building, which is as absurd as a missile hitting it and nobody seeing it from launch to contact.

I know!! It was a drone/hybrid/missile/plane looking thingee.. Made by Toyota no doubt ..

Then howcome no ID of an airliner at the Pentagon,.....?


Absolutely NO clear picture or positively identified part from a Boeing airliner crash there, offered as proof of such yet.

Originally Posted by ENT

In the VALVE THREAD.....you made an a*se of yourself.

You made an ass of yourself......AGAIN. Now you continue to do so, as you have in this entire thread, and the previous 9/11 thread. Not to mention the "This guy is fuking insane" thread. I'm surprised you didn't change your nic after that.

Originally Posted by ENT

Then howcome no ID of an airliner at the Pentagon,.....?


Absolutely NO clear picture or positively identified part from a Boeing airliner crash there, offered as proof of such yet.

You are completely delusional

No wreckage from AA77 at the Pentagon on 9-11? Really??!?


snopes.com: Pentagon Attack Faked Rumor

and that plane that the gov said the passengers forced down, all an illusion

Originally Posted by Latindancer

I'm surprised you didn't change your nic after that.

that's rich coming from you after you got ass raped by everyone in the "valve" thread,

like I said, you have a tendency to brush over facts and live in an alternate reality, the defense of a weak brain

Originally Posted by DrAndy

and that plane that the gov said the passengers forced down, all an illusion

were you there personally to witness it all ? from the tone of your post, I assume yes

Originally Posted by TonyBKK

snopes.com: Pentagon Attack Faked Rumor

it's on snopes so it must be true

jesus, with mental retards like that, we are all meat to political sharks and their government agencies

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by TonyBKK

snopes.com: Pentagon Attack Faked Rumor

it's on snopes so it must be true

jesus, with mental retards like that, we are all meat to political sharks and their government agencies

You sure like to call people retards, but I don't think I've ever seen you post a single original intelligent thing on this forum...

Snopes is just one of dozens of sites that do an effective job of poking holes in the conspiracy nutters' theories.

Conspiracy nuts like ENT refuse to see the truth even if it's right in front of them. Claiming there's no evidence that an American Airlines 757 hit the Pentagon on 9-11 is delusional.

Originally Posted by TonyBKK

Claiming there's no evidence that an American Airlines 757 hit the Pentagon on 9-11 is delusional.

those pics doesn't look like anything on a 757,

maybe you are the one who refuse to see the truth,

can't wait to see the security cameras view of the crash from the most secure and highly camera'd building in the world. This will prove it one was or another once and for all.

Oh.

Originally Posted by TonyBKK

Originally Posted by ENT

Then howcome no ID of an airliner at the Pentagon,.....?


Absolutely NO clear picture or positively identified part from a Boeing airliner crash there, offered as proof of such yet.

You are completely delusional

No wreckage from AA77 at the Pentagon on 9-11? Really??!?


snopes.com: Pentagon Attack Faked Rumor

You got some proof that all that SMOKE & FIRE FREE (unmolten!!) aluminium airliner scrap in that photo came from AA Flt 77 of 9/11/2001?

How did someone manage to clean it all up after the explosion and before the photoshoot?


Go on, tell me.......

Originally Posted by ENT

What's that puff of white smoke on the lawn in front of the Pentagon just before the Pentagon exploding?

Watch the debris cloud from that initial white smoke explosion rise then slowly descend to the lawn ,....in the opposite direction to the smoke from the main oily-black explosion at the Pentagon building.

That debris cloud landing on the lawn could be that nice scatter of clean aircraft aluminium scrap seen being hastily retrieved by squads of uniformed Pentagon staff minutes after the first explosions at the Pentagon.



So,...no airliner seen in any of the existing 84 or so videos collected by the FBI on 9/11 onwards?


No explanation for that white smoke flash either,.


It appears in another video I posted earlier of a purported missile attack on 9/11, it too doesn't show anything like an airliner flying into the Pentagon.

You can see how the aluminium debris landed on the Pentagon lawn, here,.....

Just watch that little white puff of smoke on the lawn, just between the Pentagon and the helipad....

See the debris hurled up into the air from the initial; "white smoke cloud" explosion, how it hangs inthe air before slowly clearing, larger bits of debris falling first from the lower of three groups of airborne debris.

Just be aware that in real life, ENT is a schizophrenic who is unable to differentiate between fantasy and reality. Currently he's off his meds.
And Butterfly is known as the forum's bitchy trolling poo-packer.

Originally Posted by DrAndy

and that plane that the gov said the passengers forced down, all an illusion

The one that was shot down over Ohio?

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by Latindancer

I'm surprised you didn't change your nic after that.

that's rich coming from you after you got ass raped by everyone in the "valve" thread,

like I said, you have a tendency to brush over facts and live in an alternate reality, the defense of a weak brain

Or a wombat.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

that's rich coming from you after you got ass raped by everyone in the "valve" thread

Your trolling doesn't affect me one bit, Butterfly. Nobody got ass raped in that thread. But certain dogs did expose themselves as the jerks they are, as you are now.