Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
These are not the actions of an innocent victim.
Bill, this last post of yours was on much better footing! There are a bunch of elements to the official story that are unbelievable. Just present those, as you've done, and leave the answers for those with extra investigative resources and the power of subpoena.
In the end, we should simply point to the overall picture, and how a reasonable person would regard that: Are these the actions of innocent victims? The answer, for most people, would be "probably not." Many people pride themselves on their ability to reasonably assess a situation, even republicans. If the 9/11 truth movement were to focus on that approach, it would have a lot more success.
Flipping it over, you need to look at what you do believe- that a bunch of Saudi students from Hamburg, who could hardly fly a plane performed feats of military-style flying that only skilled and experienced pilots could possibly have performed.
"Feats of military-style flying?" Please. Taking off had already been taken care of, and landing in one piece (the hardest part) wasn't part of the hijackers' plan. That leaves finding three large buildings by sight, in broad daylight, and steering the plane toward them -- something they easily learned in what little flight school they attended. Hell, even I could find my way by sight from DC to NYC via Baltimore, Wilmington and Philly. But then again, if you think Bush is a genius, and steering a plane toward obvious unprotected targets is "military style," you're really not in a position to decide what "only skilled and experienced pilots could possibly have performed."
You really haven't read anything or thought about this before today did you motherwell?
Here is what they had to say over at pilots for 911 truth about Hani Hanjour the "pilot" of Flight 77, you know the one that flew into the Pentagon.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html
So, to sum up. Hani Hanjour, took a 757, with zero time in type, did the maneuver described above, a 400 knot 330 degree sprialing dive at 2500 fpm, only gaining 30 knots, then 30 knots more descending from 2200 feet at full power, with a very steady hand as to not overshoot or hit the lawn, inside ground effect, at 460 knots impact speed, but was refused to rent a 172 cause he couldn't land it at 65 knots? C'mon... sounds like a bad B movie... Please see right margin for more testimony regarding Hani and his training.My conclusion is, the maneuver looks possible, for guys like me and you. But for Hani? unlikely. He either got REALLY lucky, or someone/something else was flying that plane. Sure wish we had clear video of a 757 hitting the pentagon to silence all these "Conspiracy theorists" (the "no planes"idiots - Bill). They want us to believe the pentagon is only covered by a parking gate camera? C'mon...
But then he was using that new "more powerful and explosive" aviation fuel wasn't he?
And then there is this: The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training
by Nila Sagadevan (pilot)
http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php?storyid=5115
"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe." - Danielle O'Brien,Air Traffic controller, Washington DC
“I’m still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all. He had trouble controlling and landing the single-engine Cessna 172." - a former employee of the flight school Hanjour attended.
According to Gary Eitel, an experienced military pilot, this maneuver would be beyond the capabilities of 90 per cent of the best, most experienced military pilots in the world.
Michael C. Ruppert, Crossing the Rubicon, p. 350.
Please motherwell, don't stop posting, you are cracking me up! You know, if you weren't so bloody minded and arrogant I would almost feel sorry for you.
Here is the cockpit of a 757
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Avianca/Boeing-757-236/1316241/L/
And here is the cockpit of a Cessna 172, the one Hanjour could "barely control".
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled/Cessna-172N/1336846/L/
No problem, easy peasy, just a few hours in a simulator, a few thousand pounds of the "more powerful and explosive" aviation fuel and you are ready to change the world!
Right -- you want us to believe that hundreds of Americans, from a huge variety of different agencies, supported a staged attack on their own people, with all benefit going to a small cabal of politicians and none to themselves; but the idea that an Arab crashed a plane into the Pentagon is ruled out because it's "unlikely?" Your "logic" gives inconsistency a bad name.
Sure, maybe Hani needed a lot of luck to hit the Pentagon; but that's nowhere near as much luck as your whole alleged conspiracy would have needed to work at all.
Yo, here's another question: what's the point of having a whole new investigation into 9/11, when it's perfectly obvious that the people demanding it would never accept any conclusions that differed from what they already believe? That would be like investigating the shape of the Earth at the behest of the Flat Earth Society. After all, if a conspiracy to stage an attack like 9/11 and disguise it as Arab terrorists is possible, then stonewalling another investigation into the matter would be child's play. Conspiracy or not, the investigation would discover nothing, the conspiracy-buffs would ignore every fact or piece of evidence that doesn't fit their delusions, and anyone ordering or participating in the investigation would look stupid and accomplish nothing.
Like all other conspiracy "theories," this one is totally untestable, so investigating it would only be a waste of time.
Are we sure the Pentagon was that group of hijackers' first choice? Maybe they wanted to hit the White House or the Capitol, but realized they couldn't do it and made a last-second decision to hit the Pentagon instead. (If they REALLY wanted to hit the Pentagon, and if they really had the training to do so, why didn't they aim for the part that contained the SecDef's office? Surely the Evil Geniuses at Langley would have known what part of the building to hit.)
If the planes were piloted by experts trained by the CIA or whoever, then how do you explain the crash in nowheresville, PA? Wait, lemme guess...the Evil Geniuses staged it to LOOK like a failure, to disguise the true scope of their Evil Genius...
See how easily "conspiracy + coverup" can be made to explain ANYTHING? And in the sciences, it is a basic principle that a "theory" that can explain anything, really explains nothing.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
