Thread: 9/11 was an inside job

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Yeah, autopilot etc. But most pilots agree that the manouvres of the planes to hit the targets were far beyond an inexperience person.

Try Flight Simulator and see how easy it is to do for yourself.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Yeah, autopilot etc. But most pilots agree that the manouvres of the planes to hit the targets were far beyond an inexperience person.

They had some training.

Originally Posted by docmartin

some clapped out DC 10 freight aircraft or similar.

Not enough mass to do the same damage as those bigger planes.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Try Flight Simulator and see how easy it is to do for yourself.

You are funny Harry.

Originally Posted by Latindancer

They had some training.

You need, along with a few others on here, to watch the 3 video's Mr Norton recommended. Your ignorance will disappear.

Originally Posted by Latindancer

Planes are hard to fly consistently well. Flying a plane is like playing music : one wrong note and you're stuffed. Plus, a lot of the difficulty is in taking off and landing them.

You live in a dream. Go watch the 3 videos Mr Norton recommended. What's there to be scared of?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Try Flight Simulator and see how easy it is to do for yourself.

Media companies have done that on record and shown that it's NOT easy to direct a plane of that size to the targets that were 9/11.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Try Flight Simulator and see how easy it is to do for yourself.

Read it and weep Harry.

The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training

Nila Sagadevan | February 21 2006

Nila Sagadevan is an aeronautical engineer and a qualified pilot of heavy aircraft.

There are some who maintain that the mythical 9/11 hijackers, although proven to be too incompetent to fly a little Cessna 172, had acquired the impressive skills that enabled them to fly airliners by training in flight simulators.

What follows is an attempt to bury this myth once and for all, because I?ve heard this ludicrous explanation bandied about, ad nauseam, on the Internet and the TV networks?invariably by people who know nothing substantive about flight simulators, flying, or even airplanes.

A common misconception non-pilots have about simulators is how ?easy? it is to operate them. They are indeed relatively easy to operate if the objective is to make a few lazy turns and frolic about in the ?open sky?. But if the intent is to execute any kind of a maneuver with even the least bit of precision, the task immediately becomes quite daunting. And if the aim is to navigate to a specific geographic location hundreds of miles away while flying at over 500 MPH, 30,000 feet above the ground the challenges become virtually impossible for an untrained pilot.

And this, precisely, is what the four hijacker pilots who could not fly a Cessna around an airport are alleged to have accomplished in multi-ton, high-speed commercial jets on 9/11.

For a person not conversant with the practical complexities of pilotage, a modern flight simulator could present a terribly confusing and disorienting experience. These complex training devices are not even remotely similar to the video games one sees in amusement arcades, or even the software versions available for home computers.

In order to operate a modern flight simulator with any level of skill, one has to not only be a decent pilot to begin with, but also a skilled instrument-rated one to boot ? and be thoroughly familiar with the actual aircraft type the simulator represents, since the cockpit layouts vary between aircraft.

The only flight domains where an arcade/PC-type game would even begin to approach the degree of visual realism of a modern professional flight simulator would be during the take-off and landing phases. During these phases, of course, one clearly sees the bright runway lights stretched out ahead, and even peripherally sees images of buildings, etc. moving past. Take-offs?even landings, to a certain degree?are relatively ?easy?, because the pilot has visual reference cues that exist ?outside? the cockpit.

But once you?ve rotated, climbed out, and reached cruising altitude in a simulator (or real airplane), and find yourself en route to some distant destination (using sophisticated electronic navigation techniques), the situation changes drastically: the pilot loses virtually all external visual reference cues. S/he is left entirely at the mercy of an array of complex flight and navigation instruments to provide situational cues (altitude, heading, speed, attitude, etc.)

In the case of a Boeing 757 or 767, the pilot would be faced with an EFIS (Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) panel comprised of six large multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of assorted ?hard? instruments. These displays process the raw aircraft system and flight data into an integrated picture of the aircraft situation, position and progress, not only in horizontal and vertical dimensions, but also with regard to time and speed as well. When flying ?blind?, I.e., with no ground reference cues, it takes a highly skilled pilot to interpret, and then apply, this data intelligently. If one cannot translate this information quickly, precisely and accurately (and it takes an instrument-rated pilot to do so), one would have ZERO SITUATIONAL AWARENESS. I.e., the pilot wouldn?t have a clue where s/he was in relation to the earth. Flight under such conditions is referred to as ?IFR?, or Instrument Flight Rules.

And IFR Rule #1: Never take your eyes off your instruments, because that?s all you have!

The corollary to Rule #1: If you can?t read the instruments in a quick, smooth, disciplined, scan, you?re as good as dead. Accident records from around the world are replete with reports of any number of good pilots ? I.e., professional instrument-rated pilots ? who ?bought the farm? because they screwed up while flying in IFR conditions.

Let me place this in the context of the 9/11 hijacker-pilots. These men were repeatedly deemed incompetent to solo a simple Cessna-172 ? an elementary exercise that involves flying this little trainer once around the patch on a sunny day. A student?s first solo flight involves a simple circuit: take-off, followed by four gentle left turns ending with a landing back on the runway. This is as basic as flying can possibly get.

Not one of the hijackers was deemed fit to perform this most elementary exercise by himself.

In fact, here?s what their flight instructors had to say about the aptitude of these budding aviators:

Mohammed Atta: "His attention span was zero."

Khalid Al-Mihdhar: "We didn't kick him out, but he didn't live up to our standards."

Marwan Al-Shehhi: ?He was dropped because of his limited English and incompetence at the controls.?

Salem Al-Hazmi: "We advised him to quit after two lessons.?

Hani Hanjour: "His English was horrible, and his mechanical skills were even worse. It was like he had hardly even ever driven a car. I?m still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all.?

Now let?s take a look at American Airlines Flight 77. Passenger/hijacker Hani Hanjour rises from his seat midway through the flight, viciously fights his way into the cockpit with his cohorts, overpowers Captain Charles F. Burlingame and First Officer David Charlebois, and somehow manages to toss them out of the cockpit (for starters, very difficult to achieve in a cramped environment without inadvertently impacting the yoke and thereby disengaging the autopilot). One would correctly presume that this would present considerable difficulties to a little guy with a box cutter?Burlingame was a tough, burly, ex-Vietnam F4 fighter jock who had flown over 100 combat missions. Every pilot who knows him says that rather than politely hand over the controls, Burlingame would have instantly rolled the plane on its back so that Hanjour would have broken his neck when he hit the floor. But let?s ignore this almost natural reaction expected of a fighter pilot and proceed with this charade.

More...

Originally Posted by Pragmatic

You live in a dream. Go watch the 3 videos Mr Norton recommended. What's there to be scared of?

They are scared of being on the receiving end of the nonsense and bullshit thicko mooner harry and gayray chuck out. That's what.

Harry believes the official narrative 100% then? What a fucking moron.

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

the US government will come clean eventually

I hope you're correct but even after 50 years the truth remains hidden about what were the true events on that fateful November 22nd, 1963 in Dealey Plaza.

Originally Posted by Pragmatic

Marwan Al-Shehhi: ?He was dropped because of his limited English and incompetence at the controls.?

Salem Al-Hazmi: "We advised him to quit after two lessons.?

Hani Hanjour: "His English was horrible, and his mechanical skills were even worse. It was like he had hardly even ever driven a car. I?m still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all.?

I've just picked up on another aspect. There were supposed recordings of the hijacker pilots mistakenly broadcasting over radio when they intended to be speaking to the passengers. Those recording were of accented but English-proficient people.

Originally Posted by Pragmatic

Read it and weep Harry.


More...

Alex Jones? You fucking twat.

It was the lizard men wot dun it?

Originally Posted by pseudolus

They are scared of being on the receiving end of the nonsense and bullshit thicko mooner harry and gayray chuck out. That's what.

Harry believes the official narrative 100% then? What a fucking moron.

IT MUST BE TRUE IT'S ON YOUTUBE!



said the tin foil hat fucking pussy.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

I've just picked up on another aspect. There were supposed recordings of the hijacker pilots mistakenly broadcasting over radio when they intended to be speaking to the passengers. Those recording were of accented but English-proficient people.

You just picked up on something "supposed"?

Well you fit right in with the rest of the tin foil whackjobs.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

IT MUST BE TRUE IT'S ON YOUTUBE!



said the tin foil hat fucking pussy.

What are you on about weirdo. You are obsessed that everyone on "youtube" is bollocks.
https://www.youtube.com/user/CNN/search?query=9%2F11

You might be right

However, you are confirming that you believe the official narrative then, Mooner?

Blimey what a simpleton you are and a chickenshit coward for not fessing up that you believe that bullshit.

Definition of a 'Debunker'.

debunker
1. Usually, a self claimed internet residing 'know it all' who claims to have the knowledge to flop what he/she perceives as a 'conspiracy theory' on its head. This is often a means for showing off. The complete opposite of a hardcore conspiracy theorist, debunkers usually have little common sense, little or no ability to connect the dots, no respect for common sense and call everything that that is outside their narrow a conspiracy theory. Since they profess to rely on hard evidence so much, this often seeps out of the domain of 'hard evidence', and they begin to fabricate so called 'truths' based primarily on jumping to conclusions and ad hominem attacks. Their favorite tactic is to try to 'get something out of the way' by attempting to embarrass their opponent and call it a done deal.

2. The other type of debunker consists of those who are anti-establishment and attempt to expose mainstream fraud and nonsense for what it is using logic, anecdotal evidence, and supplemental facts and figures. They are commonly insulted with the term 'conspiracy theorist' by those who wish to tarnish their reputations. Although still fallible, anti-establishment 'debunkers' commonly have less of an emotional stake in their arguments, as they have seen the light far more than their naive counterparts. Some do, however, take this too far and become truly raving lunatics.

You two carry on with the circle jerk, I'm going for a beer.

How lucky was the old man Silverstein that he had an appointment with his dentist, and be attended by his daughter (niece?). He had never missed his breakfast in his office on the ???st floor. Who else would cash the insurance payment?

Silverstein has said in interviews that he usually spent his mornings in breakfast meetings at Windows on the World on top of the World Trade Center North Tower, and with new tenants in the building. However, the morning of September 11, 2001, his wife insisted that he attend a medical appointment. Due to the appointment, he escaped almost certain death.[23]

/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

You two carry on with the circle jerk, I'm going for a beer.

Run away then coward.

Before your beer though, pop onto flight simulator and record a video of yourself flying a 757 in an 8,000 foot descending 270 degree corskscrew turn to come exactly level with the ground, hitting a pre designated building at ground level. So easy apparently so you pop back in 20 minutes and show us you doing it.

Coward chicken shit.

Originally Posted by BKK king

a clear example of misinformation

Read any of the whackjobs posts. They're riddled with it.

Conspiracy 101: If you can't use half-truths and information taken out of context, just lie.

Then again, scientists have found that conspiracy whackjobs tend to be mentally ill.

Harry, explain the cell phone calls and the cellular telephony handover matter with an aircraft at 30,000 ft @ 500 mph. You're a techy guy. I'd like to see how that anomaly is explained. I recall one cell phone call lasted 90 seconds...how many cell towers had to do "handover" in that time? It's a bit over 12 miles by my reckoning. I don't know how far apart cell towers need to be.
Really...I'm trying to see the truth. What's the range, what's the handover delay/capability etc. Does it all sound feasible to you that a passenger could have (back in the day, keep in mind) made an uninterupted call of 90 seconds while at 30,000 ft and at 500 mph?

Originally Posted by Latindancer

Therre is a lot of misinformation in Pragmatic's article above.

Here are some sections from an article ( https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-n...ir-instructors ) about the school that trained two hijackers :

Dekkers said both students were hard and serious workers, arriving for instruction on July 3 last year and for the most part continuously training until that December 21.

“They both had commercial pilot certificates with instrument and multi-engine ratings and approximately 350 hours of flight time. Looking back, they were average pilots for their experience level. Nothing particularly bad about their flying, but nothing remarkable either.”

“Atta spent $18,700 for a commercial single- and multi-engine program and Al-Shehhi $20,700 for the entire ab initio program,”


And the guy who trained them on a simulator said : "The truth is, [the hijackers] were really over-trained for what they did.”

Your article doesn't address any of the points made in the article Prag put forward. Harry can not read so doesn't know this. I suspect you can read so go through it again.

hen again, scientists have found that conspiracy whackjobs tend to be mentally ill.

Every study has shown that people who question the official narrative are actually more intelligent than CNN media drones like you sunshine. Doesn't take any smarts to watch the TV, nod, and say "gee whizz that's right" does it, you daft git.

Are you saying that the people who have uncovered the vast amount of conspiracies have been idiots as well? After all, modern history is riddled with conspiracy theories which have turned out to be true, despite brain dead morons like you guffawing saying "but it said on CNN that that is not true so dats funny dem idiots".