TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- September 11th Attacks - Do You Think It Was a Conspiracy?
Pages (19): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 »

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov You need approval from the President to shoot down an airliner filled with American citizens. Especially when the threat is unknown - it was difficult pinpointing what planes were hijacked, etc. In fact, air traffic controllers were calling in hijacked planes whenever a pilot didn't respond to hailing - which occured fairly often unfortunately. Had NORAD acted impulsively without presidential approval, we probably would have had 10 airliners shot down and there would be a thread about over-reaction instead of under-reaction.

Dude, no jets were even tailing the airliners. There's your problem right there. Air Traffic Control has all the authority to call in NORAD to intercept planes that have diverted off-course, which radar would indicate (not that hard), and planes in distress and loss of radio signal. This happens more than 100 times a year. And the average time is 20 minutes.

The Air Force also strangely were having a drill specifically about hi-jackings, and on top of that when 911 was happening, they were only going 300-400 miles per hour instead of 1800mph to intercept. Strange..

Watch the videos. If you find a video or article refuting it post it up.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN perhaps you'd like to explain to me why the government was haemorrhaging information so badly that even new york's cabbies knew something about the super secret conspiracy?

i never said it was a conspiracy, u did.... again i'm just reporting what i know and heard directly from my friend who actually lives in New York. Oh and its easy for you to say since you live all the way in australia, yea you don't live in New York so i don't expect an australian guy to tell me that this and that didn't happen, plain and simple you just wern't there. If your dumb enough not to look at these facts and blindly go with the evidence that your told then i don't know what your smoking, not only that but there were many other cases in which people were trying to get the word out but everyone thought they were crazy. Bush Knew about the threats months before that fateful day and that was reported on many newspapers but he hasn't said a word to try and stop it!

quote:

Originally posted by SiLveR_NrGy_985 i never said it was a conspiracy, u did.... again i'm just reporting what i know and heard directly from my friend who actually lives in New York. Oh and its easy for you to say since you live all the way in australia, yea you don't live in New York so i don't expect an australian guy to tell me that this and that didn't happen, plain and simple you just wern't there. If your dumb enough not to look at these facts and blindly go with the evidence that your told then i don't know what your smoking, not only that but there were many other cases in which people were trying to get the word out but everyone thought they were crazy. Bush Knew about the threats months before that fateful day and that was reported on many newspapers but he hasn't said a word to try and stop it!

Going by it's definition alone, THE ONLY WAY THAT IT COULDN'T BE a conspiracy would be if all those involved were somehow acting alone, on their own accord and in an uncoordinated manner.

[[ LINK REMOVED ]]

Excellent video Trancer-X


I wonder if we ll ever be able to see the actual videos that are being held by the FBI from that day.

i was going to watch this seriously until i discovered it was a "no plane" pentagon movie ahhhh, you boys crack me up. just goes to show that americans can convince themselves of just about anything

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i was going to watch this seriously until i discovered it was a "no plane" pentagon movie ahhhh, you boys crack me up. just goes to show that americans can convince themselves of just about anything

Yeah, seriously! That's almost like how some people could be convinced that a bunch of lackey's with no commercial flight experience managed to pull off amazing feats of aviation in planes that weren't even built to handle such high G-force maneuvers after unsuccessfully training to fly on rinky-dink Cessna's

Oh, wait. Nevermind. That's my government's "official" story

Edit:

Anyway, I've pretty much come to the conclusion that you don't even want to learn the truth but would rather fight everyone tooth and nail in your desperate attempt to maintain your narrowly defined, imperceptively painted view of reality.

Damn this world must be a peaceful place with blinders on.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X Yeah, seriously! That's almost like how some people could be convinced that a bunch of lackey's with no commercial flight experience managed to pull off amazing feats of aviation in planes that weren't even built to handle such high G-force maneuvers after unsuccessfully training to fly on rinky-dink Cessna's

i knew that's what your response would be. more "theory"

neither you, nor any of your ilk, have provided me a shred of evidence/argument to explain why you ignore the hundreds of people that quite clearly saw a plane crashing into the pentagon, some of whom had that big fucking jet passing within metres of them. none of you have EVER provided me or anyone else with a plausible explanation of where flight 77, her passengers, her crew actually went. nor how the wreckage (and dead bodies from the flight) actually got there.

until you do all of that you can whinge about air maneuvers til the cows come home!! again, nothing more than smoke and mirrors, pointing at supposedly inconsistent evidence whilst ignoring gaping holes in your own thesis. that kind of argument doesn't stand up anywhere mate.

quote:

Anyway, I've pretty much come to the conclusion that you don't even want to learn the truth but would rather fight everyone tooth and nail in your desperate attempt to maintain your narrowly defined, imperceptively painted view of reality.

yeah, whatever buddy. you just keep acting the whole "internet detective" role and come back to me when you can provide some answers.

quote:

Damn this world must be a peaceful place with blinders on.

and it must be really fucking entertaining where you live, that or you cower from all the fear you sell yourself never a boring day when god whispers to you or the government reads your thoughts.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i knew that's what your response would be. more "theory"

LOL - I was just repeating my own government's "theory" What, don't you believe it now that I said it?

quote:

neither you, nor any of your ilk, have provided me a shred of evidence/argument to explain why you ignore the hundreds of people that quite clearly saw a plane crashing into the pentagon, some of whom had that big fucking jet passing within metres of them. none of you have EVER provided me or anyone else with a plausible explanation of where flight 77, her passengers, her crew actually went. nor how the wreckage (and dead bodies from the flight) actually got there.

I guess that same thing could also be said about the very same people who said that they DIDN'T see any plane, any wreckage (or any debris which would be consistent with a large commercial plane hitting a reinforced concrete wall at 500+ MPH)

quote:

until you do all of that you can whinge about air maneuvers til the cows come home!! again, nothing more than smoke and mirrors, pointing at supposedly inconsistent evidence whilst ignoring gaping holes in your own thesis. that kind of argument doesn't stand up anywhere mate. yeah, whatever buddy. you just keep acting the whole "internet detective" role and come back to me when you can provide some answers.

I don't really understand what you're saying but the smoke and mirrors seems to be the tactic that the FBI and our other alphabet agencies are using in the attempt to thwart any real inquiry or investigation.

I mean Jeez, even the 9/11 Commission insiders have written about how they were set up to fail in their investigation.

quote:

In their book Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission on their experience serving as co-chairs of the Commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton devoted the first chapter on how they believed the Commission was set up for failure. Hamilton listed a number of reasons why they thought this, including the late start of the Commission and the very short deadline imposed; the insufficient funds, 3 million dollars, initially allocated for conducting such an extensive investigation (later the Commission requested and received additional funds, but the chairs still felt hamstrung); the many politicians who did not want the Commission formed; the continuing resistance and opposition to the work of the Commission by many politicians, particularly those who did not wish to be blamed for any of what happened; and the denial of access by various agencies to documents and witnesses. "So there were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...e_United_States

quote:

and it must be really fucking entertaining where you live, that or you cower from all the fear you sell yourself never a boring day when god whispers to you or the government reads your thoughts.

Actually, life is rather good here in Baltimore but that's not about to stop me from trying to do my part in order to keep it that way

Whatever else you're going on about is beyond me but you can make all of the baseless assumptions that you like.

quote:

Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission, by Thomas Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, is a book about the September 11, 2001 attacks and the 9/11 Commission that investigated them. The book was released on August 15, 2006 and chronicles the work of Kean (Commission Chairman) and Hamilton (Commission Vice-Chairman) of the 9/11 Commission, which some consider one of the most important independent government commissions in American political history. In the book, Kean and Hamilton write that the 9/11 Commission was so frustrated with repeated misstatements by officials from The Pentagon and the Federal Aviation Administration during the investigation that it considered a separate investigation into possible obstruction of justice by Pentagon and FAA officials. [21] The book is published by Alfred A. Knopf.

Sept. 11 Panel Doubted Officials

By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer

Friday, August 4, 2006
Commission Chairman Thomas Kean, left, and Vice Chairman

(08-04) 23:19 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --

The Sept. 11 commission was so frustrated with repeated misstatements by the Pentagon and FAA about their response to the 2001 terror attacks that it considered an investigation into possible deception, the panel's chairmen say in a new book.

Republican Thomas Kean and Democrat Lee Hamilton also say in "Without Precedent" that their panel was too soft in questioning former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani � and that the 20-month investigation may have suffered for it.

The book, a behind-the-scenes look at the investigation, recounts obstacles the authors say were thrown up by the Bush administration, internal disputes over President Bush's use of the attacks as a reason for invading Iraq, and the way the final report avoided questioning whether U.S. policy in the Middle East may have contributed to the attacks.

Kean and Hamilton said the commission found it mind-boggling that authorities had asserted during hearings that their air defenses had reacted quickly and were prepared to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93, which appeared headed toward Washington.

In fact, the commission determined � after it subpoenaed audiotapes and e-mails of the sequence of events � that the shootdown order did not reach North American Aerospace Command pilots until after all of the hijacked planes had crashed.

The book states that commission staff, "exceedingly frustrated" by what they thought could be deception, proposed a full review into why the FAA and the Pentagon's NORAD had presented inaccurate information. That ultimately could have led to sanctions.

Due to a lack of time, the panel ultimately referred the matter to the inspectors general at the Pentagon and Transportation Department. Both are preparing reports, spokesmen said this week.

"Fog of war could explain why some people were confused on the day of 9/11, but it could not explain why all of the after-action reports, accident investigations and public testimony by FAA and NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue," the book states.

The questioning of Giuliani was considered by Kean and Hamilton "a low point" in the commission's examination of witnesses during public hearings. "We did not ask tough questions, nor did we get all of the information we needed to put on the public record," they wrote.

Commission members backed off, Kean and Hamilton said, after drawing criticism in newspaper editorials for sharp questioning of New York fire and police officials at earlier hearings. The editorials said the commission was insensitive to the officials' bravery on the day of the attacks.

"It proved difficult, if not impossible, to raise hard questions about 9/11 in New York without it being perceived as criticism of the individual police and firefighters or of Mayor Giuliani," Kean and Hamilton said.

Congress established the commission in 2002 to investigate government missteps leading to the Sept. 11 attacks. Its 567-page unanimous report, which was released in July 2004 and became a national best seller, does not blame Bush or former President Clinton but does say they failed to make anti-terrorism a high priority before the attacks.

The panel of five Republicans and five Democrats also concluded that the Sept. 11 attacks would not be the nation's last, noting that al-Qaida had tried for at least 10 years to acquire weapons of mass destruction.

In their book, which goes on sale Aug. 15, Kean and Hamilton recap obstacles they say the panel faced in putting out a credible report in a presidential election year, including fights for access to government documents and an effort to reach unanimity.

Among the issues:

_ Iraq. The commission threatened to splinter over the question of investigating the administration's use of 9/11 as a reason for going to war. The strongest proponent was original member Max Cleland, a Democratic former senator who later stepped down for separate reasons.

If Cleland had not resigned, the commission probably would not have reached unanimity, according to the book. Ultimately, commissioners decided to touch briefly on the Iraq war by concluding there was no "collaborative relationship" between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida; the administration had asserted there were substantial contacts between the two.

_ Israel. The commission disagreed as to how to characterize al-Qaida's motives for attacking the U.S., with Hamilton arguing that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the presence of U.S. forces in the Middle East were major contributors.

Unidentified members believed that "listing U.S. support for Israel as a root cause of al-Qaida's opposition to the United States indicated that the United States should reassess that policy," which those commission members did not want.

Ultimately, the panel made a brief statement noting that U.S. policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Iraq are "dominant staples of popular commentary across the Arab and Muslim world."

_ Access to detainees. The panel pushed for direct access to detainees, at one point proposing to be at least physically present or to listen by telephone during interrogations so they could gauge credibility and get unvarnished accounts.

The administration resisted, citing concerns about national security. Officials also said they feared setting a precedent of access by a nongovernment entity that could undermine the administration's position that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to detainees classified as "enemy combatants."

The commission agreed to submit questions and receive written responses. Later, allegations emerged of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay that probably played a factor in the government's resistance, the book states.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c.../w124141D43.DTL

Pearl Harbor, believable. September 11th,

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i knew that's what your response would be. more "theory" neither you, nor any of your ilk, have provided me a shred of evidence/argument to explain why you ignore the hundreds of people that quite clearly saw a plane crashing into the pentagon, some of whom had that big fucking jet passing within metres of them.

With respect PKC, I knew that's exactly what your response would be. So my response to that is an equal "what about the hundreds of people who quite clearly saw a missile going into the Pentagon, some of whom had that big fucking missile passing above their heads, car roofs. You have no evidence other than someone's word.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN none of you have EVER provided me or anyone else with a plausible explanation of where flight 77, her passengers, her crew actually went. nor how the wreckage (and dead bodies from the flight) actually got there.

We're also told that the bodies were able to be idenitified by their fingerprints or DNA, so what kind of fire can vaopourise aluminiun and steel, and yet leave human bodies in tact?

Actually, sod this, answer me this. Why the hell won't the government release a video of a "big fucking plane" hitting the Pentagon? AND, odd how some of the hijackers turn up alive. Ah well, I guess that's more CT bullshit.

Well logically anything that involves the pentagon will be classified for military reasons. Seeying how good a plane is at punching a hole in their key military building in an anti-terroist society is probably something they'll be keen to classify.

Personally, I think this hole conspiricy surrounding 9/11 is bullshit. I thoguht as you did once, but then I found a site that disproves just about every scientific assumption surrounding the theory. I forgot the site and I am unable to find it thanks to restrictions on teh internetz were I am, so I am unable to provide links. Point is: Fuck conspiricies theories.

quote:

Originally posted by _Ocean_Drive_ With respect PKC, I knew that's exactly what your response would be. So my response to that is an equal "what about the hundreds of people who quite clearly saw a missile going into the Pentagon, some of whom had that big fucking missile passing above their heads, car roofs. You have no evidence other than someone's word.

1- missiles arent something that are easy to see, especially in comparison with a passenger jet. i find the idea that "hundreds" of witnesses saw a missile to be incorrect. your average person is quite familiar with how planes look, so i am going to trust them when one flew right over their heads. tell me how slow a missile must be travelling to get a proper ID from laymen. your problem here is believing the unlikely because it suits the idea you already have.

quote:

�I was in a massive traffic jam, hadn�t moved more than a hundred yards in twenty minutes. My office called to tell me about the first plane in New York, the reaction was �horrible accident.� And then they called about the second plane, and clearly that meant something much worse was going on. It was only then that I really noticed where I was in that traffic jam. I was going past the Pentagon, really inching a yard or so every couple of minutes. I had just passed the closest place the Pentagon is to the exit on 395 . . . when all of a sudden I heard the roar of a jet engine. I looked at the woman sitting in the car next to me. She had this startled look on her face. We were all thinking the same thing. We looked out the front of our windows to try to see the plane, and it wasn�t until a few seconds later that we realized the jet was coming up behind us on that major highway. And it veered to the right into the Pentagon. The blast literally rocked all of our cars. It was an incredible moment.

quote:

"Then the plane flew right over my head. I said to myself, boy, that plane is going awfully fast. That plane is going to crash .... The noise was like an artillery shell, not an explosion like a bomb"

quote:

"At 9:40 a.m. I was driving down Washington Boulevard (Route 27) along the side of the Pentagon when the aircraft crossed about 200 yards in front of me and impacted the side of the building. There was an enormous fireball, followed about two seconds later by debris raining down. The car moved about a foot to the right when the shock wave hit. I had what must have been an emergency oxygen bottle from the airplane go flying down across the front of my Explorer and then a second piece of jagged metal come down on the right side of the car."

quote:

"I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building. It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building."

http://www.geocities.com/someguyyou...3/witnesses.htm

^^ there are hundreds of similar accounts on this website.

missiles are really hard to see, planes are not. someone miles away might have seen a missile, but all those up close and personal saw flight 77. please explain to me why all these people that are "up close and personal" could possibly mistake a passenger jet?

quote:

We're also told that the bodies were able to be idenitified by their fingerprints or DNA, so what kind of fire can vaopourise aluminiun and steel, and yet leave human bodies in tact?

honestly, this kind of disingenuous "logic" pisses me off. there are all kinds of things that may or may not survive a fire. there are a million different things that happen in a plane crash. your insinuation, that there is some kind of formula for something that occurs every single time a plane crashes is simply wrong. its a ridiculous notion. these things do happen, but there are no coincidences in CT land!

quote:

Actually, sod this, answer me this. Why the hell won't the government release a video of a "big fucking plane" hitting the Pentagon? AND, odd how some of the hijackers turn up alive. Ah well, I guess that's more CT bullshit.

provide me with some evidence that there IS actually more video of the plane. it is merely more CT BS, youre right. there is no evidence that there are any more videos. its ridiculous, there were a bunch of hijackings that day, and the idea that the govt "stole" flight 77 so they could shoot a missile at the pentagon is ridiculous, without even questioning what the point of a missile attack on the pentagon is meant to achieve

ill say again. tell me what happened to flight 77, where AA debris and wreckage came from, what happened to the crew and passengers etc etc etc. or even better, why crash investigators were so easily fooled into thinking it was a plane? you guys must think people in your country are complete morons.

no, you'd all prefer to talk about the few minor inconsistencies. keep up the good work detective!

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN tell me how slow a missile must be travelling to get a proper ID from laymen. your problem here is believing the unlikely because it suits the idea you already have.

Tell me how a plane defies g-force, if the `mere stringg of coincidences` are true. You honestly believe that a plane was able to glide across a lawn, smash into the Pentagon, supposedly the most secure complex in the world, and not ONE video exists, not ONE!! Oh, wait, we have a nose-cone shot.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN or even better, why crash investigators were so easily fooled into thinking it was a plane? you guys must think people in your country are complete morons.

Crash investigators weren`t so easily fooled. THey said themselves they arrived at various scenes, and there was nothing to `investigate`. But these people probably don`t count as evidence in your book.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN or even better, why crash investigators were so easily fooled into thinking it was a plane? you guys must think people in your country are complete morons. no, you'd all prefer to talk about the few minor inconsistencies.

These aren`t `minor` inconsistencies. These are gaping big holes in the `official` story. If they are merely errors, or mere oversight, then fine, but why weren`t they patched up from day 1. The whole 9/11 thing is riddles with incosistencies, yet you don`t seem to want to confront them. You`re very picky about evidence. You say, "present me with evidence" and then you dismiss for any reason you can pluck.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN keep up the good work detective!

Yes, and let`s try to have a civil conversation without resorting to sarcasm, shall we?

I really think you should consider ALL evidence, and whilst you`ll say "I have, but I haven`t been presented with anything credible", and then you go and post eye-witness accounts from sources like Geocities! I say, you can`t be picky if you really want to be a `detective` about something.

Jeez, you`re gonna laugh. I read History at Uni. I`m not a CT nut, I just look at the evidence that is presented in front of me, like I did when I was studying Byzantium, and then simnply commenting on what I see.

I find it funny how the Pentagon, supposedly defended by two air wings or something. I mean, when a damn Cessna flies too close, jets are on it quick. They knew planes were being hi-jacked, they knew which planes it were by how much they diverged from their flight path, and they knew with plenty of time to scramble jets into the air to intercept. Sorry, but nothing adds up. I still think NORAD was purposefully stood down. I'm not one to say the government is responsible for 911, but I'm very suspicious of whether they were complicit in letting it happen.

quote:

Originally posted by _Ocean_Drive_ Tell me how a plane defies g-force, if the `mere stringg of coincidences` are true. You honestly believe that a plane was able to glide across a lawn, smash into the Pentagon, supposedly the most secure complex in the world, and not ONE video exists, not ONE!! Oh, wait, we have a nose-cone shot.

why? youre making assumptions again. why would the pentagon necessarily have lots of security footage of their front lawn? you keep filling in supposed holes with your own assumptions which is just silly. you havent a shred of evidence that there is footage, so your premise is already built on unsubstantiated nonsense.

quote:

Crash investigators weren`t so easily fooled. THey said themselves they arrived at various scenes, and there was nothing to `investigate`. But these people probably don`t count as evidence in your book.

yeah, so all the plane wreckage just miraculously appeared and nobody noticed anyone planting it through the accident scene. whatever mate. there is just no way you can pull the wool over investigators' eyes in such a fashion. it would become painfully clear painfully quickly that this wasnt a real plane crash.

quote:

These aren`t `minor` inconsistencies. These are gaping big holes in the `official` story. If they are merely errors, or mere oversight, then fine, but why weren`t they patched up from day 1. The whole 9/11 thing is riddles with incosistencies, yet you don`t seem to want to confront them. You`re very picky about evidence. You say, "present me with evidence" and then you dismiss for any reason you can pluck.

no, only people like you think there are THAT many inconsistencies. oh, and course there ARE inconsistencies, why you think anything like this would have a clear and proper A through Z explanation is quite beyond me???

you children simply cant tell the difference between "evidence" and "arguing from doubt". the former presents facts that speak for themselves, the latter tries to look like fact by drawing attention to supposed "inconsistencies" which you then use in massive leaps of faith in building ridiculously stupid notions.

quote:

I really think you should consider ALL evidence, and whilst you`ll say "I have, but I haven`t been presented with anything credible", and then you go and post eye-witness accounts from sources like Geocities! I say, you can`t be picky if you really want to be a `detective` about something.

firstly, that site is merely a portal for all those quotes- had you actually bothered to look at the page yourself, you would see it includes all the source material and where these quotes were lifted from.

quote:

Jeez, you`re gonna laugh. I read History at Uni. I`m not a CT nut, I just look at the evidence that is presented in front of me, like I did when I was studying Byzantium, and then simnply commenting on what I see.

but that's the problem- what DO you see? already you've repeated a number of fallacies or assumption as fact? that's not really compelling "evidence". again, it is absolutely ludicrous for you guys to be complaining about videos (or lack thereof) whilst simultaneously ignoring the massive massive holes in your own logic (where are the plane, passengers, crew, the plane debris etc).

its just silly to be focusing in so strongly on your supposed "inconsistencies" whilst ignoring all the cold hard evidence. tsk tsk.

quote:

I still think NORAD was purposefully stood down

yeah, well i provided a transcript (and actual sound bites) from the NORAD tapes that illustrates this is anything but true, but you keep clinging to your beliefs if you must, its obvious reason and evidence dont count for much with you.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i was going to watch this seriously until i discovered it was a "no plane" pentagon movie ahhhh, you boys crack me up. just goes to show that americans can convince themselves of just about anything

if you had watched it you would know better than to make ignorant statements like:

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN why? youre making assumptions again. why would the pentagon necessarily have lots of security footage of their front lawn? you keep filling in supposed holes with your own assumptions which is just silly. you havent a shred of evidence that there is footage, so your premise is already built on unsubstantiated nonsense.

especially when gentlemen such as Bob Pugh are on record as having observed a lot of things which contradict the "official" theory

Hani Hanjour must have been extremely talented to have pulled off such amazing maneuvers in that huge plane.

With that being the case, I wonder why his flight instructors were so afraid to fly with him in a Cessna?

quote:

A Trainee Noted for Incompetence By JIM YARDLEY Published: May 4, 2002 Although the authorities say none of the 19 hijackers on Sept. 11 were tied to an F.B.I. intelligence alert issued by an agent in Arizona two months earlier, one hijacker, Hani Hanjour, had come to the Federal Aviation Administration's attention earlier last year, when he trained in Phoenix. 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. Records show a Hani Hanjour obtained a license in 1999 in Scottsdale, Ariz. Previous and sometimes contradictory reports said he failed in 1996 and 1997 to obtain a license at other schools. "The staff thought he was a very nice guy, but they didn't think his English was up to level," said Marilyn Ladner, a vice president at the Pan Am International Flight Academy, which operated the center in Phoenix. Ms. Ladner said that the F.A.A. examined Mr. Hanjour's credentials and found them legitimate and that an inspector, by coincidence, attended a class with Mr. Hanjour. The inspector also offered to find an interpreter to help Mr. Hanjour, she said. "He ended up observing Hani in class," Ms. Ladner added, "though that was not his original reason for being there." Company officials briefed members of Congress about the case, including Representative James L. Oberstar, Democrat of Minnesota, who made public some of its general details in December. The aviation agency did not return a call for comment. Pan Am International, one of the largest pilot schools in the nation, also operated the flight school in Eagan, Minn., near Minneapolis, where the instructors' suspicions led to the arrest of Zacarias Moussaoui, the man whom the authorities have said was intended to be the 20th hijacker. Ms. Ladner said the Phoenix staff never suspected that Mr. Hanjour was a hijacker but feared that his skills were so weak that he could pose a safety hazard if he flew a commercial airliner. "There was no suspicion as far as evildoing," Ms. Ladner said. "It was more of a very typical instructional concern that 'you really shouldn't be in the air.' " A former employee of the school said that the staff initially made good-faith efforts to help Mr. Hanjour and that he received individual instruction for a few days. But he was a poor student. On one written problem that usually takes 20 minutes to complete, Mr. Hanjour took three hours, the former employee said, and he answered incorrectly. Ultimately, administrators at the school told Mr. Hanjour that he would not qualify for the advanced certificate. But the ex-employee said Mr. Hanjour continued to pay to train on a simulator for Boeing 737 jets. "He didn't care about the fact that he couldn't get through the course," the ex-employee said. Staff members characterized Mr. Hanjour as polite, meek and very quiet. But most of all, the former employee said, they considered him a very bad pilot. "I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon," the former employee said. "He could not fly at all." Source

quote:

Hani Hanjour Obtained a commercial pilot's license in April 1999 from the Federal Aviation Administration. The license expired six months later because he failed to complete a required medical exam. In 1996, he received flight training for a few months at a private school in Scottsdale, Ariz., but did not finish the course because his instructors thought he was not proficient enough. He listed his address as a post office box in Taife, Saudi Arabia, but he also has been linked to addresses in San Diego and Hollywood, Fla. His name was not on the American Airlines manifest for the flight because he may not have had a ticket. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-sr.../hijackers.html

This one also brings up a lot of good points




(this is why I can still appreciate Alex Jones in despite of all his emotional outbursts)

When asked what size the plane was, witness Michael Kelly said that it sounded like a "small plane" as it flew over him just moments before crashing into the Pentagon.

Eyewitness Don Wright said that it looked like a small commuter plane.

quote:

Originally posted by The Arbiter Well logically anything that involves the pentagon will be classified for military reasons. Seeying how good a plane is at punching a hole in their key military building in an anti-terroist society is probably something they'll be keen to classify.

Well, not anything (or everything.) This should be evident by the fact that Judicial Watch successfully sued the DoD on the grounds that they had no legal basis for refusing the release of the security video footage under the Freedom of Information Act.

Another thing which I find interesting (which you just reminded me of) is how an alleged plane (with an ultra lightweight, aluminum nosecone) somehow managed to punch through a total of nine feet of concrete at a spot in the Pentagon which had at that point been further reinforced.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X Well, not anything (or everything.) This should be evident by the fact that Judicial Watch successfully sued the DoD on the grounds that they had no legal basis for refusing the release of the security video footage under the Freedom of Information Act. Another thing which I find interesting (which you just reminded me of) is how an alleged plane (with an ultra lightweight, aluminum nosecone) somehow managed to punch through a total of nine feet of concrete at a spot in the Pentagon which had at that point been further reinforced.

ultra lightweight is not synonymous with ultra weak

an eggshell is ultra light and made of calcium, yet when you balance it perfectly on end, it can support a few hundred pounds..... a nose cone is a similar shape to an egg.... very strong shape to be applying force on end...

quote:

Originally posted by colonelcrisp ultra lightweight is not synonymous with ultra weak an eggshell is ultra light and made of calcium, yet when you balance it perfectly on end, it can support a few hundred pounds..... a nose cone is a similar shape to an egg.... very strong shape to be applying force on end...

They're so strong that wild Geese are able to puncture them in mid-flight



http://www.strangemilitary.com/content/item/952.html



Edit:

and again, I STILL can't imagine how a nose cone could have punched though nine feet of reinforced concrete - especially after reading Lt. Kevin Schaeffer's alleged account (he works for the DoD, after all) of how he saw a chunk of it laying near the B ring wall (in between the B and C rings of the Pentagon.)

quote:

(excerpted from 'Inside the Pentagon on 9/11: The Call of Duty') Shaeffer stood on a service road that circled the Pentagon between the B and C rings. A chunk of the 757's nose cone and front landing gear lay on the pavement a few feet away, resting against the B Ring wall.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.