Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The 9/11 Hijackers: Amateur Aviators Who Became Super-Pilots on September 11

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
JohnyCanuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 10:24 PM
Original message
The 9/11 Hijackers: Amateur Aviators Who Became Super-Pilots on September 11

EXPERTS SAID HIJACKERS 'MUST HAVE BEEN EXPERIENCED PILOTS'
Numerous experts commented that the hijackers who flew the aircraft in the 9/11 attacks must have been highly trained and skillful pilots. Tony Ferrante, the head of the Federal Aviation Administration's investigations division, spent several days after 9/11 carefully piecing together the movements of the four aircraft targeted in the attacks. According to author Pamela Freni, Ferrante's "hair stood on end when he realized the precision with which all four airplanes had moved toward their targets." Ferrante said, "It was almost as though it was choreographed," and explained, "It's not as easy as it looks to do what did at 500 miles an hour." <1>

Darryl Jenkins, the director of the Aviation Institute at George Washington University, told the New York Times that the men who carried out the attacks "knew what they were doing down to very small details." He said, "Every one of them was trained in flying big planes." The Times reported that a "number of aviation experts agreed" with Jenkins and had said that "the hijackers must have been experienced pilots." John Nance, an airline pilot, author, and aviation analyst, said that "the direct hits on the two towers and on the Pentagon suggested to him that the pilots were experienced fliers." Nance pointed to the "smooth banking of the second plane to strike the towers," and said that "precisely controlling a large jet near the ground, necessary for the Pentagon attack, also required advanced skill." Nance concluded, "There's no way an amateur could have, with any degree of reliability, done what was done" in the 9/11 attacks. <2>

snip

FLIGHT 77 PILOT WAS 'TOTALLY CLUELESS' AND 'COULD NOT FLY AT ALL'
Of the four men supposedly at the controls of the hijacked aircraft on September 11, Hani Hanjour stood out for his particularly weak flying skills. This 29-year-old from Saudi Arabia is alleged to have flown Flight 77 into the Pentagon. That, as we have seen, would have been a particularly difficult task, even for the best pilots. Hanjour, however, was a hopeless pilot.

An Arizona flight school Hanjour attended in 1996 found the young Saudi to be a "weak student" who "was wasting our resources," according to the school's owner. <29> An instructor at another Arizona flight school who taught Hanjour for four months in 1998 later stated: "As a pilot, Hani Hanjour was very poor. His knowledge of the academic side of training was weak, his flying skills were marginal, but most significantly his judgment was very poor." The instructor recalled that Hanjour "was not well educated nor was he very intelligent." Hanjour had "a poor understanding of the basic principles of aviation" and "poor technical skills." <30>

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-07-12/911-hijackers-amateur-aviators-who-became-super-pilots-september-11


"Poor technical skills" might not make for a good pilot, but probably they'd be all that's needed for a patsy.
Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
terrafirma Donating Member (339 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 10:30 PM
Response to Original message
1. Keep digging....
10 years after the fact and you folks are still rehashing the same shit.

Let the Casey Anthony trial be a lesson in what evidence needs to be presented....
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-11 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. Yes. A trial.
At first everyone thought that Casey was gonna be convicted. After all, that is what the government said. And the media, too! She was done. Same as 9/11.

Then a trial was conducted - in the open and transparent, unlike the farcical 9/11 commission.

The American way is that all the facts are presented and weighed out in a fair way. Casey got her fair trial, and surprise! She was not found guilty. Don't you think bush-/911 should get a fair trial? I do. It is the America way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-11 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. What are you babbling about?
You state that the government said Casey Anthony was going to be convicted.

Can you explain what government said that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-11 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. Eh?
"....what government said Casey Anthony was going to be convicted."

Hilarious, Lared, simply hilarious. Can you say "State Prosecutor"? I knew you could.
Bwahahahaha!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-11 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. So everyone thought Casey was guilty because
the state prosecutor (thst represents the government) said so? The evidence had nothing to do with how people view the case.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-11 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Bwahaha, keep digging lared
"The evidence had nothing to do with how people view the case."

You gotta be making this up, right?
You are being comedic? Right?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
jul61252 Donating Member (50 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-11 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. +100
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
terrafirma Donating Member (339 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-11 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. Unfortunately...
the prosecution (the truth movement in this metaphor) was weak on being able to prove their case. Add the fact that they were going after the death penalty (much like many truthers have spouted on about), and you're gonna have a hard time convicting anyone.

And normally for a trial to occur, there needs to be evidence of a crime.

The truth movement, 10 years after the fact, is STILL short on that front as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-11 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Ahhhh, there's our difference, terrafima
You write:"And normally for a trial to occur, there needs to be evidence of a crime."

I believe bushco committed many a crime in the lead up to 9/11.

And you think they were totally innocent? They committed no crime?
Is that really what you are going to stand there and claim?
Or are you gonna do the shiffle and just slink away?

What's it gonna be? Are you really gonna let that lay there and stink?

No "...evidence of a crime" WTF?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
terrafirma Donating Member (339 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-11 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. You can believe all you want...
... but like you so pointed out with the Casey Anthony trial, the whole WORLD believed she would be convicted. But... lo and behold.

And I never stated the administration was totally innocent, but thanks for putting words in my mouth. I think most, if not all, politicians are guilty of something or other.

But the simple fact remains is that the truth movement has had 10 years to build its case and you're still sitting here on an internet forum, no closer to the trial you "believe" should happen.

Why?

... because the movement has no evidence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-11 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Not totally innocent?
So you admit they committed crimes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
terrafirma Donating Member (339 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-11 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Wow...
You certainly seem more focused on getting me to admit to something by putting words in my mouth than addressing my post.

"Guilty of something or other" could mean anything. I've lied to my parents before. Is that a crime? I'm sure you have been less than truthful at some point in your life. Are you guilty of a crime?

Since you seem to be struggling with the meaning behind what I'm posting, let me spell it out.

The truth movement does not have any legitimate evidence that 9/11 was a crime. You've had 10 years to gather it up, and still not one, clear, coherent alternative exists. That was the prosecutions problem in the trial. "This could've happened" or "That could've happened", but they could never say what DID happen. They couldn't even prove how Caylee died.

That's a pretty big issue in a murder trial.

And it's the truth movement's problem in regards to 9/11. You can't tell me that with all the money-grubbing lawyers in existence, not one would take up your cause if you had something legitimate to go on.

And yet... nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-11 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Oh bullshit
There is more evidence of crimes being committed before 9/11 than Casey was ever accused of. And you damn well know it.

Eh? Maybe you don't?

Maybe you believe that allowing the hijackers to roam the country at will was not a crime?

That being warned and ignoring the warnings was not a crime?

That obstruction of the FBI was not a crime?

Maybe you don't know shit from shinola? Could very well be true.

It may be that you even believe that bush using the days events to invade and kill thousands more innocents was legal? And was the right thing to do? It wouldn't surprise me one bit if you did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
terrafirma Donating Member (339 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-11 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Sounds like you're a LIHOPer
even though I'm sure I recall past posts of yours being more MIHOP.

Was there ass-covering? I'm sure. (It was a pretty damn big flub...)

Were there breakdowns in intelligence? You bet. This is Bush we're talking about... the poster-child for "breakdowns in intelligence".

But I'll play along, since maybe you can answer the question I've been asking of truthers for years now.

If you have all this evidence of crimes being committed, why the @#%@# are you on an internet forum posting about it instead of doing something with it?

Why are you content to let these crimes go unpunished??
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-11 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. First
Convince people that there were crimes committed. Right here on DU was where my eyes were opened to the evidence, and I'm just passing it along. Sorry if it fucking bothers you so much. Too bad.

I am not content to let these crimes go unpunished and so, there you are spewing bullshit again. Will you ever put a fucking lid on it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
terrafirma Donating Member (339 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 06:30 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. Convince people first?
Why? You have the "evidence", take it to trial. Who cares if people agree with you or not? Trying to convince people 9/11 was an inside job first is like the media trying to convince us that Casey Anthony was guilty before the trial.

You're no better than those you despise.

And you are content (by "you", I mean all truthers). If you weren't, something would've been done by now.

Hell... you can't even convince people in 10 years??

Wow, dude....
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 07:29 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. That is weird
After 10 years you get your jollies by harassing people who think bushco is criminal and should be brought to trial. That really is weird.

Why do you do that? Does harassing people and defending bushco make you feel big?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
terrafirma Donating Member (339 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 08:14 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. Harassing? Defending?
No... just calling you out on your bullshit.

I'll be keeping an eye out for that trial of yours though....
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 08:33 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. Yes
You are just harassing me. I suggest you just quit.

However, I guess I should feel flattered that your focus is on me. You can't get ol' befree out of your head can you?

Too, your focus on me is an affirmation that I am doing the right thing by focusing on bushco and their crimes, so keep it up. But, realize, 90% of what you have posted is just stupid and you have no credibility here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. 90%?
You are at 100% so I guess you win!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. I sure did win
Edited on Fri Jul-15-11 12:14 PM by BeFree
Thank you for thinking of me, dudette. I was wondering when you were gonna bop in.

The preceding debate was one sided. terrafirma focused on me and what 'it' thought Befree should do, or think or act. My focus was on the actual words 'it' professed, and those quoted words were shown to be nothing more than made up, and/or ill informed words.

Thanks for thinking of me, again. And again. Sweetums.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
terrafirma Donating Member (339 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. Jesus, where to begin...
I. Revisionist History
You invited this debate. You asked if I would slink away. I did not, and now all of a sudden I'm harassing you.

II. Delicate Sensibilities
If a back-and-forth on an internet forum is "harassment", then color me guilty. And one-sided? Who all came to back me up and pile on you? Must've missed that part. Certainly hope you didn't expect me to take your side. That would make the debate pretty pointless.

III. Delusions of Grandeur
While I was specifically addressing you (typically what most people do when engaged in a conversation), I also made many references to the truth movement as a whole. So unless you, BeFree, are the only person left in the movement (which I guess is possible), I was no where near "singling you out".

IV. Childish
It's funny you felt the need to refer back to me in the neutral while putting the reference in quotes. Not once, but twice. I'm male, by the way. But I sincerely hope that attempt at a slam picked you up from the terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day you were having from all this "harassment"....

V. Feeling of Accomplishment
Wouldn't get too high on your horse about you being onto something because I'm "focused on you". I didn't stop anything from happening because there wasn't anything to stop. 10 years and counting and still... nothing to stop.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. Your words 16 you & yours
there needs to be evidence of a crime.

Casey Anthony trial, the whole WORLD believed she would be convicted.

I never stated the administration was totally innocent

you're still sitting here on an internet forum

you have been less than truthful at some point in your life. Are you guilty of a crime?

you seem to be struggling

You can't tell me that with all the money-grubbing lawyers in existence, not one would take up your cause if you had something legitimate to go on.

Sounds like you're a LIHOPer

why the @#%@# are you on an internet forum posting

Why are you content to let these crimes go unpunished??

Who cares if people agree with you or not?

you can't even convince people in 10 years??

I'll be keeping an eye out for that trial of yours

You asked if I would slink away. I did not, and now all of a sudden I'm harassing you.

While I was specifically addressing you

no where near "singling you out".
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. My words

I believe bushco committed many a crime in the lead up to 9/11.

No "...evidence of a crime" WTF?

So you admit they committed crimes?

Maybe you believe that allowing the hijackers to roam the country at will was not a crime?

That being warned and ignoring the warnings was not a crime?

That obstruction of the FBI was not a crime?

Maybe you don't know shit from shinola? Could very well be true.

Right here on DU was where my eyes were opened to the evidence, and I'm just passing it along. Sorry if it fucking bothers you so much. Too bad.

I am not content to let these crimes go unpunished

After 10 years you get your jollies by harassing people who think bushco is criminal and should be brought to trial. That really is weird.

Too, your focus on me is an affirmation that I am doing the right thing by focusing on bushco and their crimes, so keep it up.

Why do you do that? Does harassing people and defending bushco make you feel big?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-11 06:42 AM
Response to Reply #31
35. it's as if you jam your fingers in your ears
After 10 years you get your jollies by harassing people who think bushco is criminal and should be brought to trial.

If you have any persuasive evidence that "bushco" should be brought to trial about the 9/11 attacks, you should simply post it, instead of picking fights with other DUers. It's really just that simple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
terrafirma Donating Member (339 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #30
33. Interesting...
I never saw one so full of themselves to be so uncomfortable with people addressing them in debate.

Not sure who you feel I should've directed my statements to. I was talking to you, so MY logic would conclude that I should specify that in my text, just so there wasn't any confusion.

Apparently, in your mind, that's harassment. (Friends and family must have a bitch of a time communicating with you as well I'd imagine.)

Oh well.

Sorry I made you cry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-11 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #33
36. Bwahaha
You call what you were doing a debate? Bwahahah

You slinked away from every question, moving the goal posts and otherwise avoiding every point.
Not to mention that you seem to have lost track.

It was no debate from you... you just spewed crapola.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
terrafirma Donating Member (339 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-11 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #36
41. You're right. Maybe "debate" was the wrong term....
"Pointing out bullshit, inconsistencies, and lack of logic" would probably be more apropos.

And let's not forget "harassment".

To recap: You state that the truth movement has plenty of evidence of crimes being committed. Yet, you're first order of business is to convince others that this is the case, rather than letting that evidence speak for itself in a court of law. You are therefore subverting the very institution and due process you claim was on display with the Casey Anthony trial. (She was "convicted" in the public eye prior to the evidence being argued, and you are looking to "convict" the PTB before presenting your evidence.)

Please note. So as not to offend your delicate sensibilities, any use of "you" or "your" in this post is in reference to the truth movement as a whole. Not BeFree specifically.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-11 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. So you agree?
There should be a chance for the movement to present it's case in a court of law.

Of course you will weasel away from that, but that IS what you claimed you are for, right?

A fair hearing in a real court of law.

I look forward to your cooperation in seeking justice the American way.
One down, a few more to convert. We're a movement that shall not be stopped.

My work with you is done. Unless you don't really want real American justice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-11 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. I'm cooperating
I'm trying to help you filter out the bullshit in your evidence, so the defense won't be able to rip your case to shreds by pointing out how idiotic it is. You don't seem to appreciate my efforts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-11 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. Help?
Edited on Sat Jul-16-11 02:36 PM by BeFree
Wonderful. I knew you'd come around.

We are a movement that can't be stopped. We are gaining ground against the bushco.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-11 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. That depends...
... on whether or not there's any evidence left after the bullshit is filtered out. So far, it's not looking so good, but maybe another decade will do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-11 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. I know what you mean
What we are having to do now is work to filter through the bullshit.

Because, so far, the only hearing we've had was the 9/11 commission in which the bushco had their hands all over. Imagine that, the fox in charge of the hen house. And what a pile of manure they left behind.

We are just about done filtering through all that bullshit. Nothing but citizen's doing the work.
Bushco left quite a legacy, eh?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
terrafirma Donating Member (339 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-11 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #42
47. Priceless...
You totally ignore your own double standards in terms of how justice should be done....

Answer me this. What should come first? A trial? Or convincing citizens that "bushco is guilty"?

To answer your question, yes. I wholeheartedly support the truth movements right to present their case in a court of law. That does not mean I agree with your supposed evidence, but then again... I don't have to. If your evidence is that compelling, then it will be demonstrated as such in the trial, and I will be proven wrong and you will be vindicated.

What you can't answer (or refuse to acknowledge) are the reasons why this trial hasn't happened yet. I'll help you out as it's only one of two things...

Either

A: the evidence really isn't as slam dunk as the movement makes it out to be, or...

B: the movement (which you claim is growing stronger day by day) is just plain too damn lazy to do anything with it..


Which is it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-11 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. What double standard?
That's just more bs.

A: Until the evidence is presented in a court of law, the quality of it is undetermined. But I see you've already decided. Yours is the double standard. You have already decided - before there is true justice - that justice has been served.

B: More bs. We are an active and involved movement that has moved forward against great opposition - like your double standard. Yours and the bushco criminals who don't ever want to see their workings examined under a true light.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
terrafirma Donating Member (339 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-11 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #48
51. Um, no...
A: So you doubt the movements evidence. Interesting. I'll give though. I totally support an open 9/11 trial.

B: i would however, like to see evidence of this "moving forward" you speak of. Kind of hard to gauge the overall movement based solely on internet hits, and that's where the movement seems to be relegated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-11 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. well
You haven't been around much, so how would you know what the movement is doing?

We are just about filtered through all the bs from bushco. Like seger and I were discussing.

Glad to see you totally support an open 9/11 trial. Some are too afraid to offer such support, and I think I know why. It's too scary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
terrafirma Donating Member (339 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-11 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #52
54. It's not scary at all.
I believe it would be one step closer to giving you people less to bitch about.

So... What happens when you're COMPLETELY done filtering through the bushco bs? What's the next step?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-11 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. Aww
Edited on Sat Jul-16-11 09:08 PM by BeFree
Does our 'bitching' bother you?

It is scary to examine the facts about 9/11. To think that the government would be either so incompetent or so dangerous is scary. After all it did mean thousands were killed. It is much safer to just accept the OCT. The brave people of the movement don't let fear stop them.

When we finally do get an extra-brave politician in office, we will move forward. As it is, so far, every politician who even signs a petition supporting the movement gets fired. Fucking shameful. Eh?

I mean here you are - supporting a fair trial. If you were an office holder you'd be counting your last minutes in office right about now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-11 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #55
56. Maybe you should actually read the post you are replying to
"It's not scary at all."
Anything else you need pointed out to you?
Also, have any of your last 25 posts have anything to do with the OP?
No?
Wonder why...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
terrafirma Donating Member (339 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-17-11 12:30 AM
Response to Reply #55
57. No... your bitching doesn't bother me.
Nor does it seem to bother any of the PTB.

And as far as politicians go, I thought Ron Paul was on your side? Here he is running for the office of the presidency. Why hasn't he been fired yet??
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-17-11 07:10 AM
Response to Reply #57
58. Ron Paul?
What does he say about 9/11?

And you do seem rather bothered. Why else would you spew so much crap? You're not just trolling are you?

I know..... you're here for an education. Welcome then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
terrafirma Donating Member (339 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-17-11 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #58
59. Wrong again.
Just here for the entertainment value.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-17-11 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #59
64. That is *&R(&$^(&^$*
You brought up Ron Paul, and I ask you what his claims were.
And you slink away. Why you're no fun, you fell right over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
terrafirma Donating Member (339 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-17-11 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #64
67. Aren't you supposed to be some super sleuth?
It's called Google.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-17-11 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #67
69. terrafirma
Ain't really so 'firm', eh?

Can't even back up your own assertions. You're no fun.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-17-11 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #58
60. The very definition of "irony"
"Why else would you spew so much crap? You're not just trolling are you?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-17-11 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #60
61. Bwahaha
Edited on Sun Jul-17-11 10:58 AM by BeFree
"Just here for the entertainment value"

Real odd, that. Entertained by 9/11!!

Thank gawd most people find no entertainment value in discussing 9/11.
Too serious of a matter for the majority to so casually designate this matter?

That is another thing the movement has to put up with. Not only are we trying to make sure bushco is held accountable, we have to put up with creatures who are here just for kicks.

Democratic progress has always had such opponents. 'Twas ever thus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-17-11 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #61
62. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-17-11 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #62
63. Heh
You do realize that more than 50% of Duers are what you call 'troofers'?

How you get away with calling more than 50% of Duers "clown or idiot" amazes me.

Zap wrote: "Oh well, every community needs a clown or idiot and troofers fill the bill nicely."
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-17-11 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #63
65. if 'more than 50% of Duers are what you call 'troofers'
were true, then the 9/11 forum would be a very busy place. Instead of a handful of truthers routinely reposting debunked crapola.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-17-11 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #65
66. Define truthers
Or "troofers".

Or just slink away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-17-11 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #66
77. Befree nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-17-11 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #63
71. "You do realize that more than 50% of Duers are what you call 'troofers'?"
Edited on Sun Jul-17-11 12:58 PM by zappaman
there you go....making shit up again.
prove it.
or just keep babbling.

ETA: yes, the troofers are certainly out in force backing you up here, aren't they?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
terrafirma Donating Member (339 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-17-11 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #61
68. Entertained by you.
But don't let me stand in your way of holding bushco accountable. You must be really close now to bringing down the hammer of justice.

Any day now, right?

....?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-17-11 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #68
70. Eh?
Edited on Sun Jul-17-11 12:56 PM by BeFree
How the hell can you sit there and try to make fun of me doing what I can to stand against bushco?

Whose side are you on?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
terrafirma Donating Member (339 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-17-11 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #70
72. Eh!?!?!!?
How the hell can you sit there and whine about being picked on on an internet forum when the evil bushco is sitting free, probably planning their next big attack???

Is what I'm posting THAT urgent in the grand scheme of things that you need to take precious time from your Bushco Accountability Quest to deal with it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-17-11 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #72
74. Like I said
Being here on DU has educated me, and now I am trying to pass that education on.

Thanks for your kicks. You've actually contributed something toward that end, believe it or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
terrafirma Donating Member (339 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-17-11 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #74
75. Tick Tock...
Every minute you're passing that education on is another minute Bushco has to plan out their next op.

You have the evidence! You must stop them!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-17-11 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #74
76. yes, I love these kicks
that show you have nothing.
nada.
zilch.
just insults.
meanwhile, the world and DU laughs at you.
kick!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-17-11 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #70
73. BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!
Bushco must be soooo frightened of you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-17-11 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #70
78. Can you define Bushco? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-17-11 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #78
79. Yes...bushco is
The bush family members, cheney, rumsfeld, and all their supporters.

So, you ever figure out how to define what you call a 'truther'?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-17-11 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #79
80. So the guy that voted for Bush is a member of Bushco? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-17-11 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #80
81. No
They are just idiots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-17-11 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #81
82. still waiting
for you to back up your claims of troofers making up more than half of DU.
in another thread, you say 88%.
what's taking you so long.
guess you're just making it up, eh?
BHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-11 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #42
49. Hasn't the movement already had its chance to present its case in a court of law?
Edited on Sat Jul-16-11 05:08 PM by Make7
Are you not familiar with the following lawsuit?

          Plaintiff, by his undersigned attorney, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, as and for his Complaint against the Defendants, respectfully alleges:

I. INTRODUCTION

          1. The Plaintiff, William Rodriguez, is a native of Puerto Rico, a citizen of the United States, and a resident of the State of New Jersey. On September 11, 2001, and for approximately nineteen years prior thereto, Rodriguez was employed as a maintenance worker at the World Trade Center ("WTC") in New York, New York. On 9-11,2 Rodriguez singlehandedly rescued fifteen (15) persons from the WTC, and — as Rodriguez was the only person at the site with the master key to the North Tower stairwells — he bravely led firefighters up the stairwell, unlocking doors as they ascended, thereby aiding in the successful evacuation of unknown hundreds of those who survived.

          2. Rodriguez, at great risk to his own life, re-entered the Towers three times after the first, North Tower impact at about 8:46 A.M., and is believed to be the last person to exit the North Tower alive, surviving the building’s collapse by diving beneath a fire truck. After receiving medical attention at the WTC site for his injuries, Rodriguez spent the rest of 9-11 aiding as a volunteer in the rescue efforts, and at dawn the following morning, was back at "Ground Zero" continuing his heroic efforts.

          3. Rodriguez lost his employment of 19 years and his means of earning a living as a direct result of the attacks on the WTC on 9-11. Deeply affected, as one might imagine, by his experiences of 9-11, Rodriguez has, in a variety of capacities and through several different organizations, worked ever since that terrible day to help others who were affected by the atrocities committed. He has continued in these labors, notwithstanding the fact that, due to the loss of his employment, he has been unable to earn a living, and was even homeless for a time.

          4. While there have been convened two purported "investigations" of 9-11, one by a joint committee of Congress plus a second, "independent" investigation conducted, in the main, by the Commission chaired by Thomas Kean3 and comprised of persons with flagrant conflicts of interest, neither investigation has addressed in earnest and transparently — much less made known to the public — the facts of what really happened on 9-11 to deprive plaintiff of his livelihood, and to cause the deaths of approximately 2,993 persons from some 83 countries (most of the deceased being citizens of the United States).

          5. The government, and most of the major media allied with, or operating in fear of offending, the Bush II Administration, would have the public believe that the facts of by whom and in what manner the 9-11 attacks were carried out have been investigated, and the 2,993 homicide cases are "closed," but for the hoped-for capture of Osama bin Laden and others of the "al Qaeda" network who may have aided in the attacks. Literally within just a few hours following the attacks, government and corporate media sources put forth an "Official Story" which, with minor patching-up to gloss over revelations that President George W. Bush and other high government and military officials had many, surprisingly specific warnings of terror attacks using airplanes as weapons, is essentially as follows. Four planes, American Airlines Flights 11 and 77, and United Airlines Flights 93 and 175, were hijacked by four teams of Arab hijackers totaling 19 men. The hijackers were part of a decentralized network of Islamist militants, whose leader (or one of whose top leaders) is Osama bin Laden, who although generally acknowledged as a onetime CIA "asset" (at the time that the U.S. Government and the CIA funneled funds to anti-Soviet militants fighting in Afghanistan) is now depicted as a devout enemy of America. Bin Laden, and the hijackers, are said to have been motivated by their hatred for America (in President Bush’s words by hatred of "our freedoms") and resentment over U.S. troops remaining stationed in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries, U.S. support for Israel and its treatment of the Palestinian Arabs, and perceived American opposition to Islam. Initially, the "Official Story" claimed that the attacks came "without warning," that "no one could have imagined [them]." As such claims were resoundingly discredited, the story was revised to assert that such warnings as were received were too indefinite to allow actions as might have prevented the attacks from occurring. Upon information, not one American who held on 9-11 a position in the Government, the military, the affected airlines, the airport security systems, or the civilian air traffic control systems has been discharged, or forced to resign his or her job, or court martialled due to failure to do their duty in respect of the attacks. The Official Story, of course, fails even to consider as within the realm of possibility that high government or military personnel may have affirmatively desired that the attacks succeed, and for that reason failed to take measures as might have prevented the attacks or, once the same were in progress, mitigated the loss of life (such as intercepting the diverted aircraft before the WTC and the Pentagon were struck). That such persons might have actively participated in planning or sponsoring the attacks, or enabling the attacks to succeed, is considered so incredible as to be unworthy of refutation by the proponents of the "Official Story."

          6. As will be examined below, to accept the Official Story as true, one must ignore much evidence to the contrary, believe many facts that range from implausible to impossible, and ignore the stunning number of bizarre "coincidences" which alone can explain the events of 9-11, if one rejects that the attacks were an "inside job." Although the infrequent references to "9-11 skeptics" in mainstream media generally denigrate them as "tinfoil hat-wearing" eccentrics, or persons who hate America, in point of fact large numbers of Americans harbor serious doubt as to the veracity of the Official Story. Indeed, a mainstream publication (Harpers) is running in its October 2004 issue a 12-page essay by Benjamin de Mott entitled "Whitewash as Public Service: How the 9/11 Commission Report Defrauds America." On August 31, 2004, Zogby International, a respected polling organization, released the results of surveys taken in the days preceding the 2004 Republican National Convention, indicating that 49.3% of the population of New York City, and 41% of the residents of New York State, were of the belief that the U.S. government "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or about September 11, 2001 . . . and consciously failed to act." Such figures, especially given that major media (like the Commission) have assiduously "whitewashed" the facts of the actual 9-11 attacks for more than three years, are astounding. Thus, however disturbing the implications of the plaintiff's allegations in this lawsuit, he cannot be dismissed as a lone eccentric. As an American and as an undisputed hero of the events in question, Rodriguez, in demanding the truth of those events that cost him his job and anguish as few people are called upon to undergo, deserves the full benefits of American justice, and his day in court.

          7. Plaintiff's RICO claim is supported by the following compelling facts, among others, which he intends to prove at trial:

          a. Scientific data clearly indicates that the World Trade Center buildings, including the little-discussed Building 7, were destroyed by means of controlled demolitions, of the sort that take weeks or months to prepare and could only have been an "inside job"; there were large explosive charges in the sub-basements of both of the Twin Towers, as well as smaller charges used to bring the buildings down in an orderly fashion, and neither tower collapsed due solely to the aircraft impacts or heat generated by the burning of jet fuel on the aircraft;

          b. FDNY employees were and continue to be under a "gag order" imposed by senior FDNY officials on instructions of ex-CIA director James Woolsey and others, which forbids them to talk about (among other things) multiple explosions at the WTC on 9-11;

          c. WTC Building 7 was deliberately "pulled" (demolished) by agreement between the FDNY and Larry Silverstein shortly after 5:00 P.M. on 9-11, as he himself admitted on public television;

          d. FEMA, the agency that deliberately removed or destroyed the physical WTC evidence before independent experts could examine it could examine it, has as its principal purpose the perpetuation of an invisible government designed to replace our existing elected government;

          e. All of the planes, excepting possibly Flight 11, could and ought to have been intercepted before striking their putative targets;

          f. Military intervention was delayed because of a military exercise that simulated an attack on the Pentagon, which was being carried out on the morning of 9-11 – an attack of which the perpetrators could have known only with access to inside information;

          g. To successfully make the many and lengthy cell phone calls allegedly made by passengers from the hijacked planes was statistically impossible, given the prevailing state of cell phone technology;

          h. The sophisticated flight maneuvers attributed to the terrorist pilot who allegedly flew into the Pentagon were far too complex for a man who flunked flight training school;

          i. No reliable evidence puts any Arabs, or persons with Arab names, on any of the four diverted aircraft of 9-11;

          j. The missile that struck the Pentagon was not Flight 77; the hole made in the Pentagon on 9-11 was too small to accommodate an airliner, and no airliner debris appears in any photograph of the wreckage;

          k. President Bush and other senior officials had multiple, actionable warnings of the attacks (if, indeed, they did not sponsor and schedule the attacks);

          l. The "insider trading" on United, American Airlines and other 9-11-affected stocks was the subject of an ongoing cover-up, to conceal the identities of persons who had advance notice of the 9-11 attacks;

          m. Significant evidence indicates that Flight 93 was shot down, and did not crash due to a struggle between hijackers and passengers; and that stories to the contrary were fabricated by the Enterprise (as defined in paragraphs 88-91 hereafter) for the media, which it largely owns and controls; and

          n. The Enterprise, and American oil, gas, weapons, private security (mercenary) and other Enterprise-affiliated and Enterprise-friendly financial interests have profited, and continue to profit, from the "war on terror" within the United States, the military actions taken in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the extreme right-wing view of "national security"; and economic advantage favors the continuation and expansion of those efforts.


http://sites.google.com/site/rodriguezlawsuit/RodriguezComplaint.pdf
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-11 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. No I wasn't don't recall. Thanks
That was on brave man and lawyer. I bet the judge threw it out on a technicality.

But I'm sure bushco had nothing to do with it being thrown out. Bwahahah
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-11 08:18 PM
Response to Reply #50
53. "But I'm sure bushco had nothing to do with it being thrown out. "
we agree.
they didn't.

now what?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. actually
everything in your posts are wrong, not to mention delusional, and incoherent.
you managed to prove once again that not only do you NOT have a point, but beyond your insults, you really have nothing to say.

I guess you like the attention?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-11 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #29
37. Bwhahaha
Oh, baby that hurt!!

Why you wanna treat me this way?
I'm still your lover boy,
I still feel the same way.

I love your attention, you 'betcha!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-11 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #37
38. thank you
for once again proving my point, baby.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-11 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #38
39. Bwahaha
Edited on Sat Jul-16-11 11:04 AM by BeFree
Not everything in your posts are wrong, or delusional, but mostly incoherent.

You manage to prove time and again that not only do you NOT have a point, and absent your insults, you really have nothing to say.

Who loves ya, baby.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-11 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. Harassing you?
Maybe you should stop volunteering to be the Piñata.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 11:01 PM
Response to Original message
2. All Super-Pilots must demonstrate competence in takeoff and landing.
Soo...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-13-11 09:10 AM
Response to Original message
3. Unadulterated bullshit
The FAA produced an animation of Hanjour approaching the Pentagon using data taken from the flight data recorder. An unskilled pilot attempting to dive straight into the building from 7000 feet would almost certainly have gained so much speed that the plane would have been uncontrollable and would have overshot the target if it didn't disintegrate first. A "super-pilot" could have done that by "slipping" the plane sideways to increase its drag, but Hanjour was no "super-pilot" so he made a slow, wobbly spiral to descend. But then he lost too much altitude and damn near plowed into the bridge well short of his target. Then, he narrowly avoided crashing into the Pentagon lawn instead of the building. The whole time, he was cranking on the wheel like an inexperienced driver. "Super-pilot" my ass. Look up the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.

Conspiracists have some deep-seated need to believe a version of the events that is highly implausible at every possible level, from planning to cover-up, but they nonetheless feel compelled to make their unfounded speculations sound like rational conclusions. The preferred way to make their incredibly implausible speculations sound more probable than the "official story" seems to be to claim that the "official story" is impossible. In fact, that's the ONLY way to make most of their fantasies sound plausible. Hanjour as "super-pilot" is a good example of how idiotic things can get when you go down that road, but it's not even the worst example in the large pile known as the "truth movement."
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-11 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. I like the way you label your posts.
What you wrote, however is adulterated bullshit.

People who parrot the media and bushco OCT have some deep seated need to believe the lies without question, and you done good seger. No question about that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-11 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. I have my own eyes and functioning brain
Edited on Thu Jul-14-11 01:00 PM by William Seger
... and a deep seated need to have RATIONAL reasons for believing things. Apparently, that makes me a natural enemy of your "truth movement." I gave my reasons for calling bullshit on "super-pilot" Hanjour, and once again, as usual, your reply contains absolutely nothing substantive. But you just can't keep your fingers off the keyboard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-11 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. Enemy?
Bwahahaha!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-11 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #3
83. how do you define slow?
and at minimum, you admit he was lucky, right?

Also--

"An unskilled pilot attempting to dive straight into the building from 7000 feet would almost certainly have gained so much speed that the plane would have been uncontrollable and would have overshot the target if it didn't disintegrate first."

Doesn't this sort of argue against your point that he wasn't that skilled?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-11 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #83
84. what's more believable?
that the hijackers had a little luck on their side?
or that the hijackings never occurred and the planes were "green-screened" in and all the witnesses are lying and all the videos are faked and mini-nukes were used and there were no victims on the plane and no one has ever figured this out even though it's one of the most needlessly complex plans ever put to paper?
think it out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-11 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #83
85. Watch the animation
Edited on Wed Jul-20-11 04:26 PM by William Seger
Hanjour cut the throttle before starting that spiraling turn, so he did the turn at less than 300 knots and took about 3.5 minutes, so it was slow in terms of both speed and time. Then he pushed it back to maximum after he completed the turn, so the final reading was 462 knots.

> Doesn't this sort of argue against your point that he wasn't that skilled?

Huh? No, he didn't attempt to dive straight into the building. It would appear that the spiraling turn was planned, presumably because he knew he wasn't skilled enough to do a difficult dive.

And yes, absolutely, he was very lucky to miss the bridge and the lawn. That was my point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
KDLarsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 10:02 PM
Response to Original message
34. Super-pilots?
Try the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

Everyone seems adamant that the way the pilot hijackers flew, was the way they had intended to do so. In reality, at least two of them botched the flight royally and we never got to see how good Ziad Jarrah piloting skills were, as UA93 never got close enough to DC for us to find out.

Marwan al-Shehhi nearly botched his attempt at flying UA175 into 2WTC, by failing to account for the crosswind, and as a result had to bank the aircraf. He nearly missed a 200 feet wide target!

Hani Hanjour was way too high when he approached Washington, to the point that he had to do a rollercoaster 330 degree turn to lose some of it. And even then, he came incredibly close to crashing short of the Pentagon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-23-11 07:01 PM
Response to Original message
86. Zaccarias '20th hijacker' Moussaoui was so lousy a pilot the Flight School turned him in to the FBI.
Of course, the FBI said "Fuhgeddaboudid!"

Thankfully, the Flight School approached their Democratic Congressman James Oberstar who got the FBI to take action.

While Coleen Rowley tried, her bosses at FBI ordered her team to sit on the guy's laptop until after September 11.

Details (bunch o' now-busted links, though): Know your BFEE: The Stench of Moussaoui Permeates the Octopus
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-11 03:15 AM
Response to Original message
87. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-11 03:17 AM
Response to Reply #87
88. All of your spam messages will likely be deleted, so why not go about this a different way? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 07:49 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC