Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Okay, I just read that article about the alleged impossibility of aiming a plane at a large target and crashing it into said target. And the article has one huge hole in it:
But once you’ve rotated, climbed out, and reached cruising altitude in a simulator (or real airplane), and find yourself en route to some distant destination (using sophisticated electronic navigation techniques), the situation changes drastically: the pilot loses virtually all external visual reference cues. S/he is left entirely at the mercy of an array of complex flight and navigation instruments to provide situational cues (altitude, heading, speed, attitude, etc.)
I've flown over the Eastern Seaboard several times, and I can tell you that on a clear day (like 9/11/01, as all the photos clearly show), there are PLENTY of visual reference cues. I follow them, one to the next, all the way from DC (where I take off) to New York; and my ability to do this is limited by my knowledge of local geography, not by visibility. I would, of course, be unable to locate an airport and land safely there; I would also be unable to locate something as small as my house; but finding a huge and well-known building like the WTC or Pentagon would be much easier.
If Hanjour looked straight ahead through the windshield, or off to his left at the ground, at best he would see, 35,000 feet -- 7 miles -- below him, a murky brownish-grey-green landscape, virtually devoid of surface detail, while the aircraft he was now piloting was moving along, almost imperceptibly and in eerie silence, at around 500 MPH (about 750 feet every second).
Has this guy ever flown before? I've been in planes since age 5, and once again, when the sky is clear, details on the ground are quite visible from cruising altitude: rivers, towns, farmland, salt flats, hills, mountains, coast, highways, woods, Manhattan...and no, a commercial jet does not "move along, almost imperceptibly and in eerie silence." Big jets are noisy.
Can't you fruit-bats even TRY to sound believable? I've heard better stuff from the LaRouchies!
Court Cases in the US District Court,
Southern District of New York,
with Attorney Jerry Leaphart:
** Dr Judy Wood, suing on behalf of the United States of America and demanding a Trial by Jury, has evidence that Directed Energy Weapons were a causal factor in the destruction of the World Trade Center.
http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.html
Docket No. 1:07-cv-03314-GBD
Title: Wood v. Applied Research Associates, Inc. et al
Judge: George B. Daniels
** Dr Morgan Reynolds, suing on behalf of the United States of America and demanding a Trial by Jury, has evidence that the Media broadcasted cartoons of an airplane hitting the South Tower.
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=federal_case
Docket No. 1:07-cv-04612-GBD
Title: Dr. Morgan O. Reynolds v. Science Applications International Corp. et al
Judge: George B. Daniels
PRESS RELEASE: Scientists See WTC - Hutchison Effect Parallel - On a Washington DC local radio station, WPFW, Scientists discuss true nature of destruction of WTC Complex on 9/11 and conclude it was related to a known effect: http://www.prlog.org/10048184-scientists-see-wtc-hutchison-effect-parallel.html
PRESS RELEASE: 9/11 Qui Tam Jurisdictional Challenges Filed - 2/29/08 - Two Qui Tam cases - U.S. District Court, SDNY -- 9/11 related - One alleges Twin Towers destroyed by Directed Energy Weapons - Other alleges No Planes hit the towers - Directed energy weapons toxic effects continue at Ground Zero: http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_rugbyzhg_080307_9_2f11_qui_tam_jurisdi.htm
The 9/11 attacks, the 9/11 cover up, and the 9/11 "truth movement" were orchestrated by people associated with directed energy weapons and the media:
9/11 Directed Energy Weapon / TV-Fakery Suppression Timeline
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=151&Itemid=60
Debunking the 9/11 *Anti-No-Plane-Theory* Myths
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=163&Itemid=60
I agree that people tend to see or not see what they want to see -- we've all seen the right wing lie so often that they start to believe their own lies. But the people who do not believe the official story of 9/11 rely on much more than just what some people think they see in the photos. I am one of those people who has no doubt that the official story is not the truth. Just the uncontroverted facts alone are more than enough to warrant a new investigation -- the fact that Bush/Cheney fought tooth and nail to prevent having 9/11 investigated(!!) and refused to be interviewed under oath, separately (the biggest RED FLAG OF THEM ALL); the fact that the head of the 9/11 Commission had a huge conflict of interest in that he's a neo-conservative/Bush supporter, and that he was in contact with Karl Rove during the investigation, which was prohibited; the fact that the bin Laden family was secretly flown out of the country by the FBI when all other flights had been grounded, and without even a cursory interview asking if they knew the whereabouts of their relative, Osama; the fact that the soldiers who participated in the Able Danger program and who had information pertinent to the 9/11 investigation were never interviewed by the 9/11 commission at all, even though these soldiers approached the Commission about providing what they knew; the fact that the trading of "put options" on only the airlines involved in the attack had an out-of-the-ordinary spike in the days leading up to 9/11 (when you trade in put options, you're basically betting that a company's stock will drop); the fact that many people still do not to this day realize that a 3rd building in the World Trade Center complex (Building 7) caught on fire and collapsed on 9/11 later in the day, and that it too seemed to collapse into its own footprint as if it were a controlled demolition instead of a simple fire -- and it didn't get hit by a plane (this building housed SEC, FBI and CIA offices and records, including the Enron case files); the fact that Ashcroft quit flying on commercial airlines about a month or two prior to 9/11; the fact that all but 2 fighter jets were on the other side of the country on 9/11, participating in a terrorist attack practice drill that simulated almost the exact scenario that actually took place that day, which caused endless confusion when the real deal actually took place; the fact that many of the extraordinary actions Bush has taken using 9/11 as the reason for doing so were actually in the works long before 9/11, such as the war in Iraq and the surveillance of American communications; the fact that all Bush/Cheney et al, were concerned with, even on 9/11, was finding a way to go to war in Iraq and shifted from pursuing bin Laden in Afghanistan to overthrowing Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and actually stated that “we are not concerned about the whereabouts of bin Laden..” There are many,. many more details that are “fishy.” The photos are the least impressive evidence that we have not been told the truth.
There are many very credible people who believe 9/11 should be reinvestigated, including the famous 4 widows who pushed for 9/11 to be investigated, a whole list of folks at the CIA, and just about anyone who takes an unbiased look at the evidence. We spent millions of dollars investigating Clinton (Kenneth Starr had a staff of over 400 people on his Special Committee) and the only thing they could come up with was the affair with Monica Lewinsky. Yet the 9/11 investigation was grudgingly allowed to be undertaken, had a hard, fast deadline within which is was mandated it be completed, was underfunded and fraught with conflicts of interest and details left uninvestigated. What do I expect to happen? Nothing, really. But I would like to see it acknowledged that the 9/11 Commission’s findings were incomplete, and that we basically didn’t get a true unbiased full investigation and therefore will never truly know who was behind 9/11.
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
