Flight 77 maneuver

[Jango]

Then please provide the demonstration.

With pleasure: Not everything is a conspiracy. The Moon Landing happened. Millions of Jews were exterminated by Hitler's decree. The Illuminati does not run the world. The Government does sometimes tell the truth. Alex Jones and David Icke, among many others, are snake oil salesmen. The U.S. mainstream media isn't controlled by the Government. All of the ills in the world are not the result of direct or indirect U.S. involvement. The Jews do not run the world. Boston Marathon bombing was not a hoax. Sandy Hook was not a hoax.

If I was as steeped in conspiracy rhetoric as you falsely claim I am, I would believe all of what I listed above, among many other notables, like no planes were used whatsoever on 9/11 and that either 1) nukes or 2) energy weapons from space caused the Twin Towers to collapse.

I've clearly distinguished myself from that POV. It isn't all too surprising that you accuse me of being on one of the extremes, seeing as that you reside in the opposite extreme: no doubt whatsoever about the mainstream narrative.

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

"See that nonsense over there? I don't believe any of that, it's insane."


"This nonsense over here, on the other hand...well, I think it's quite plausible."










"...and I'm definitely not paranoid."

 

[beachnut]

...
I've clearly distinguished myself from that POV. ...

You have debunked remote control. Good job.

Why were you fooled by remote control, and what is with the Hani Gish Gallop?

 

[JayUtah]

Darn, the FDR show a constant decent into the Pentagon, thus it was at 20 feet for less than a hundredth of a second.

This is one of those cases where we have to reconcile the DFDR (i.e., objective data) against eyewitness testimony and subsequent interpretation.

My experience is that laymen (and even some pilots) are not good judges of altitudes and sink rates from the ground. And when your references are an airframe and an oddly shaped large building, I would find it easy to believe the onlookers underestimated the altitude. Depending on where you stand, you just can't detect sink rates easily from the ground.

You can show NASA flight test for fuel additives, and it does not mean the planes on 911 were remote control...

Especially if one is trying to shoehorn it into a LIHOP scenario where an in-service commercial airliner with a known ancestry is somehow modified by terrorists to be flown crudely by remote control.

The remote-control scenario is a non-starter. The accused terrorists have a long history of using human guided precision weapons -- i.e., suicide bombers on foot and in motor vehicles. There is no dearth of volunteers for this. I don't see why it should stop now.

Poor flying looks okay outside the plane.

Exactly. For example, from the ground a balked landing looks just like an unremarkable climbout. From inside, a balked landing looks and feels like the airplane is standing on its tail. It's well within the airframe's capability, but it's not the way the airplanes are ordinarily flown with passengers on board. Especially with large transport airframes, practically everything they do looks graceful to the layman even if the pilot is a washout.

...not things a terrorists pilots need to be good at.

Landing was a difficult skill for me to master because it requires control of your three-dimension position in space as well as your three-dimensional velocity state, where those variables are interdependent. You have to arrive at that spot over the runway going a particular direction at a particular speed with a particular sink rate. That requires a lot of control because you want to live to tell about your first landing.

What people don't realize is that if all you want to do is crash the airplane into a thing, all you have to do is manipulate the controls in order to keep the thing centered in your windscreen. There's no special skill involved with that. And as you get closer, more pronounced control inputs are required in order to make those corrections, which is exactly what we see in the DFDR data.

But more importantly, it simply doesn't matter that the ground is there. You're aiming for a spot on the building. That's your target, and all you have to do is keep that spot centered. Your flight path intersects with the building, and it is utterly irrelevant that, for the last few seconds, it also got very, very close to something you weren't concerned with.

When you're landing, the ground is of utmost interest because you don't want to hit it prematurely.

Remote control, is based on ignorance, and the inability to understand the facts and evidence on record.

It really is. Yes, today we have well-developed remote-control drones -- which, of course look and behave nothing like commercial airliners. We have had subsequent discussions in the industry of fly-by-wire systems that could conceivably be remotely controlled, but there is and has been no followup on that.

I find it far less likely to believe that somehow an in-service commercial airframe was clandestinely rigged for accurate remote-control flight by third-world terrorists and then successfully flown into the Pentagon with no subsequent discovery of relevant evidence, than I do the notion that a bunch of suicide bombers learned just enough about how to fly an airplane to fly one into a huge building, in the mode of attack they've used for decades.

 

[Jango]

Resolving natural inconsistencies in observation and interpretation is not "omitting a whole bunch of unfortunate truth." That's conspiracy rhetoric for focusing on minutia while ignoring the big picture entirely.

But clearly it is. You affirmatively press this approach you say you find so distasteful.

No, not by "appearances" but by your judgment.

Every single conspiracist I have debated makes exactly this argument. He doesn't want to have a conspiratorialist mindset, and he doesn't want to have these distressing beliefs, but he's dragged reluctantly and inescapably to them by their sheer objective convincing power.

It's all part of the rhetoric, Jango. It's all meant to sound like this isn't a chosen belief but one the believer has no choice but to accept, as an objective truth.

No, the rank and file sheeple aren't scared of these topics. More rhetoric.

Still more standard conspiracy rhetoric. For some inexplicable reason the results of lengthy, painstaking investigation are "politically" suspect unless they include some random detail reported onsite and interpreted at the time without the benefit of knowledge, expertise, or time to reflect.

Yes, this is your pattern.

The sad thing here is that you know you're using buzzwords like 'conspiracy theorist' to describe the usage of skepticism, which everyone here claims to use, not against the government, of course, but against those who ever actually use skepticism or refer to anything outside of a .gov url or spokesperson. 116 of your likeminded associates have said there is not 1 single legitimate reason to question the official narrative of the 9/11 attacks. Being a skeptic, by default, means that there is always a question to be asked about so-called accepted truths. Yet the mainstream accepted truth about 9/11 is not questionable whatsoever, which is why you and so many others have squandered yourselves logical and casually dismiss anything, even mainstream sources, if it contradicts the narrative you're here to defend day-in and day-out.

To you there is none of this:

"Of course three buildings collapsed on 9/11 because of damage and fires...but maybe?"

Explore 'Maybe'. Is there anything there to be found whatsoever? Yes: People there, on the scene, who were living the full 9/11 experience in person, in real-time and in living color, commented about hearing and feeling powerful and loud explosions before and during the collapse, including on-site news reporters who said that very thing on live T.V. 'It is the third or fourth reported explosion' 'A very loud explosion and the building collapsed in on itself' 'Like a controlled demolition'

To you, those facts can be safely and casually dismissed without incident because you would never give it a second thought, to any of it. Yet you say I am the unreceptive one, except, you also say that I am receptive. Weird. Look! Another coincidence.

Come on, man.

 

[JayUtah]

With pleasure: Not everything is a conspiracy.

But when you do claim a conspiracy, it's always according to the same pattern. And that pattern contains assumptions and premises that you cannot leg go of. That was my point. When faced with reasonable arguments that tend to undermine your beliefs, you deploy the same set of arguments every time. It transcends all the genres of conspiracy theories you do argue. Just because you don't fall for all the woo that exists doesn't mean you don't fall for woo the same way every time.

If I was as steeped in conspiracy rhetoric as you falsely claim I am, I would believe all of what I listed above...

Straw man.

I've clearly distinguished myself from that POV.

But the POV you do adopt is still based on well-worn conspiracy rhetoric and some tried-and-true arguments, such as what an astute political analyst and commentator you are compared to your critics, how invariably evil the civil service is, how such insight trumps any sort of practical or scientific understanding (e.g., HAARP), and how the secret vaults of the Powers That Be justify your speculation about what they must contain.

...seeing as that you reside in the opposite extreme: no doubt whatsoever about the mainstream narrative.

Straw man. Link to the post where I said that.

 

[JayUtah]

The sad thing here is that you know...

If it's all right, I'd like to proceed with this debate without you trying to say what's "really" going on inside my head.

116 of your likeminded associates have said there is not 1 single legitimate reason to question the official narrative of the 9/11 attacks.

The vast majority of the discussion that accompanies that poll dwells on how poorly-written and loaded it was. I myself speculated in that thread that your real reason for posting it was to shift the line in the sand so far over to one side that your opponents would seem unreasonable for disagreeing with you.

Lo and behold, you did not disappoint:

Being a skeptic, by default, means that there is always a question to be asked about so-called accepted truths.

As I predicted, you're now using that loaded question to argue that your critics are unreasonable, insincere, and irrational. Thanks for finally coming clean about your shenanigans.

To you...

Here you go again, trying to shove words into your critics' mouths. Deal with the arguments we present, not with the ones you wish we had.

To you, those facts can be safely and casually dismissed...

I'll be the authority on what my arguments actually are, thank you very much.

 

[Jango]

You have debunked remote control. Good job.

Why were you fooled by remote control, and what is with the Hani Gish Gallop?

An exercise, I suppose. And to characterize what I "was" as "fooled" is inaccurate.

*The MSM doesn't comment on the F.B.I.'s hijacker chronology, which shows Hani first receiving flight training in the early nineties.
*The characterization of Hani's abilities, or lack thereof, could be erroneous.
*But AA77 hit the Pentagon, right?
*And since the plane could not be remote controlled, that means that Hani and only Hani was piloting the plane since he was the one who had had prior training, right?
*How does Hani get on the plane? Unless the instructors fabricated their claim, they called the FAA about Hani. The not being interested in landing thought process landed on the F.B.I.'s radar, whom as part of the U.S. IC, were aware of the threats to civil aviation by OBL/al Qaeda/other Islamic transnational terrorist groups. President Bush was briefed in early August about suspicious activities and the preparation of hijacking -- meaning that U.S. counterintelligence had picked up on it. President Clinton had been warned about the OBL hijack threat too. The FAA was warned dozens of times about OBL's hijack threat and desire. Hani's passport was probably as bad as 14 other 9/11 hijacker's passports.

 

[JayUtah]

*The MSM doesn't comment...

Since you agree the "mainstream media" is not controlled by the government, then can you think of any other reasons why they would not report this?

*The characterization of Hani's abilities, or lack thereof, could be erroneous.

"Erroneous" is too narrow a word. The discussion here and elsewhere has focused on the assessment of Hani's "flying ability" and his likely ability to crash an airliner intentionally as apples-and-oranges comparison. What's your answer to that?

*But AA77 hit the Pentagon, right?
*And since the plane could not be remote controlled, that means that Hani and only Hani was piloting the plane since he was the one who had had prior training, right?

One is an observed fact. The other is the most likely explanation among all those offered, by conventional assent, as to how the observed fact came about.

*How does...

And this is just more argument by hindsight. The Powers That Be didn't see at the time what you obviously see in retrospect as something that you think should have been seen and acted upon. And since it wasn't, the explanation you favor is LIHOP.

 

[beachnut]

The sad thing here is that you know you're using buzzwords like 'conspiracy theorist' to describe the usage of skepticism, which everyone here claims to use, not against the government, of course, but against those who ever actually use skepticism or refer to anything outside of a .gov url or spokesperson. 116 of your likeminded associates have said there is not 1 single legitimate reason to question the official narrative of the 9/11 attacks. Being a skeptic, by default, means that there is always a question to be asked about so-called accepted truths. Yet the mainstream accepted truth about 9/11 is not questionable whatsoever, which is why you and so many others have squandered yourselves logical and casually dismiss anything, even mainstream sources, if it contradicts the narrative you're here to defend day-in and day-out.

It sounds like you are questioning 2+2=4 and you got applesauce as your answer.

Why is there no legitimate reason to question 911? Because it was done by 19 terrorists, it is an event. So far all you have exposes is a lack of knowledge in flying, simile, smoke, flight 175, and more anomalies you find, due to your lack of knowledge, and inability to understand evidence, vs opinions you quote mine from MSM.

I say the official narrative is exactly what happened on 911, thus there are no legitimate reasons, because if there is a something, then that is what happened.
What do you have, remote control? BS, made up out of ignorance.
Proof is four stock 757/767s flew on 911, they did not have remote control, and any competent pilot would see modifications made by idiots from the MIB, and would refuse to fly modified planes. It is what pilots do when they discover modified parts on their jet, even in squadrons tasked to fly test. this is only one reason why remote control becomes a fantasy, like your JFK and alien believes. you like BS, and conspiracy theories, and you have freely posted BS conspiracies in this thread.

Could Hani fly 77? Not only could he, there is evidence based on your posts a bad pilot flew that flew 77, could be Hani, because you have evidence, albeit opinions that Hani was a poor pilot. The opinions he could not fly 77 and hit the Pentagon, are not supported by the opinions, and after inspecting the terrible flying of 77, Hani becomes the prime suspect because you have evidence, opinions based on his flying skills, he was bad, and that is proved by the FDR. Thus you have real evidence, but the false conclusion it could not be Hani, because you think the flying was skilled, it was not.

"Of course three buildings collapsed on 9/11 because of damage and fires...but maybe?"

Yes, maybe 911 truth quote mines loud sounds, some of them bodies hitting the ground into CD. Now that is fantasy. Making up a conclusion based on BS, of sounds, not evidence of explosives, but loud sounds perceived by people who heard, bodies hitting the ground, buildings falling, transformers exploding, sonic booms, etc. You and 911 truth take simile and make doubt, and go all JFK and alien on 911.

Explore 'Maybe'. Is there anything there to be found whatsoever? Yes: People there, on the scene, who were living the full 9/11 experience in person, in real-time and in living color, commented about hearing and feeling powerful and loud explosions before and during the collapse, including on-site news reporters who said that very thing on live T.V. 'It is the third or fourth reported explosion' 'A very loud explosion and the building collapsed in on itself' 'Like a controlled demolition'

Lets explore maybe, gee, the plane were stock 757/767, not remote controlled. End of "maybe".

Now you want to say the loud sound of a 767 hitting the WTC is proof of explosives?
Floors hitting floors accelerating due to gravity make loud sounds, and you want this to be proof of explosives.
Zero steel with evidence of blast effects of explosives, proves no explosives, destroying your "maybe", and you fail to accept reality; "maybe" ?
Bodies hitting the ground are loud sounds, sounded like bombs, and you use bodies hitting as your "maybe" explosives?
You use simile as your evidence for maybe?
Do you have any evidence for maybe? No.

To you, those facts can be safely and casually dismissed without incident because you would never give it a second thought, to any of it. Yet you say I am the unreceptive one, except, you also say that I am receptive. Weird. Look! Another coincidence.

It turns out coincidence for 911 truth is ignorance.
Second thought is what you don't give evidence.
Proof of dismissing evidence for hearsay, and BS, proved in this thread.

Come on, man.

Exactly, have you figured out a terrorist flew 77 is supported by the FDR? Do you need a copy of the data? Why would you make up any statements about 77 without study of the FDR? It makes no sense.

Do you have evidence of remote control? No, the same for explosives.

 

[Jango]

Since you agree the "mainstream media" is not controlled by the government, then can you think of any other reasons why they would not report this?



"Erroneous" is too narrow a word. The discussion here and elsewhere has focused on the assessment of Hani's "flying ability" and his likely ability to crash an airliner intentionally as apples-and-oranges comparison. What's your answer to that?



One is an observed fact. The other is the most likely explanation among all those offered, by conventional assent, as to how the observed fact came about.



And this is just more argument by hindsight. The Powers That Be didn't see at the time what you obviously see in retrospect as something that you think should have been seen and acted upon. And since it wasn't, the explanation you favor is LIHOP.

How do you figure? OBL and al Qaeda had been on the radar of the U.S. Security Services for years. The C.I.A. Director declared war on OBL in December 1998. President Clinton was informed in December '98 and early 1999 that 1) OBL wants to hijack U.S. commercial aircraft & 2) that al Qaeda sleeper cells are inside the United States. So what in the hell was U.S. counterintelligence doing about this? Lots of ?'s in this regard. The August 6th PDB mentioned 70 full-field investigations related to OBL. What the hell were they investigating and how did they not stumble upon the hijackers, some of whom that lived openly, trained on U.S. military bases and lived with an F.B.I. informant? Failure of imagination and incompetency are usually the shoe-in responses to that line of questioning. It has not and does not fit.

 

[JayUtah]

How do you figure?

Because you get to cherry-pick the relevant stuff out of all that was going on. That's how hindsight works. That's what hindsight is, by definition.

 

[beachnut]

An exercise, I suppose. And to characterize what I "was" as "fooled" is inaccurate.

You are still fooled, like your smoke never retracted. Why not admit you made up BS, and move on. Like the JFK stuff, and aliens (that painting was cool, and exposes as BS).

*The MSM doesn't comment on the F.B.I.'s hijacker chronology, which shows Hani first receiving flight training in the early nineties.

So? Why add BS Gish Gallop to the failure of remote control claims?

*The characterization of Hani's abilities, or lack thereof, could be erroneous.

No, Hani was bad, he was learning to fly so he could kill Americans, not a very noble reason, not a good reason to become a great pilot. Hani was poor, and I can see the constant critique of instructors only helping his hate for America, and Americans. A kid off the street could fly as good as 77 was flown, or better. Hani's flying skills are not a factor, and you have only helped give background on his poor skills, which are reflected in the FDR. I studied the FDR, it shows a bad pilot, bad skills, and PIO at the end, a bad pilot skill.

*But AA77 hit the Pentagon, right?

Wow, how could he miss a 900 foot wide target? I have never flown with a pilot who could missed landing near the centerline, even on their first time in a heavy jet (a jet that can weigh over 300,000 pounds). I never heard of a pilot, even those who were washed out of the USAF, who missed approaching the runway. But hitting the runway is not passing, landing on speed, on course at the proper attitude is passing.

Flight 77 did hit the Pentagon, FDR, DNA, Radar, even witnesses prove it.

*And since the plane could not be remote controlled, that means that Hani and only Hani was piloting the plane since he was the one who had had prior training, right?

A pilot with bad skills flew 77 into the Pentagon, it is proved by the FDR. Gee, anyone could fly 77 that poorly, and the planes were take over by terrorists; who flew your fantasy version of 77 - right a black box not invented, only the CIA has them for instant covert conversion of planes...
Maybe Hani was playing instructor to his buddy terrorist. There are two seats, guess which one was making inputs? Did you read the FDR? I did.
Guess what, after you study the FDR, get back to me with your analysis. Good luck, I did this for a living, aircraft accident investigation, flying, instructing flying, learning to fly, simulator instructor, evaluator, instructor for General officers flying the jet... All you have is BS

What does the FDR say? Did you study all the real evidence? No.

*How does Hani get on the plane?

Hani bought a ticket? Wow, that was an easy Gish Gallop debunking.

Unless the instructors fabricated their claim, they called the FAA about Hani.

Why would they call the FAA? They did not rent Hani a plane. Where is your source? And how does a bad pilot point to hijacking planes? Remember, you say Hani can't fly, so what does a pilot in your fantasy who can't fly have to do with terrorism of hijacking?

What was the typical USA hijacking like? Gee, the hijackers are still running around the world, Spain will not send us one of the old hijackers, today... look at the big way to trick the USA, fake a hijacking, steal a plane, and do what you want for an hour or so... it was a classic end run, a new thing, a one time deal UBL and his BS do nothing nuts figure out by luck.

The not being interested in landing thought process landed on the F.B.I.'s radar, whom as part of the U.S. IC, were aware of the threats to civil aviation by OBL/al Qaeda/other Islamic transnational terrorist groups. President Bush was briefed in early August about suspicious activities and the preparation of hijacking -- meaning that U.S. counterintelligence had picked up on it. President Clinton had been warned about the OBL hijack threat too. The FAA was warned dozens of times about OBL's hijack threat and desire. Hani's passport was probably as bad as 14 other 9/11 hijacker's passports.

Why would they pick out Hani? A bad pilot in a light single engine prop?
Where did you get training in Gish Gallop? You post a bunch of BS and never connect the dots.
the passport card again? Is that a standard Gish Gallop point in 911 truth followers Gish Gallop book of BS... can't wait for the border patrol to inspect the BS I put on my customs forms, I will be on the Jango no fly list for putting silly stuff on my official paperwork...

You are still fooled.

 

[pgimeno]

Hani has been described by his instructors as being terrible^[1], so much so that they called the FAA. I watched CJ's video from the beginning to the very end, and then re-watched all of Hani's movements. Quite remarkable feats for someone who could not handle a Cessna^[2].

[2] does not follow from [1]. Hanjour could handle a Cessna. After being with the instructor that said "he couldn't fly at all" (which, by the way, also said that "There's no doubt in my mind that once [Flight 77] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it"), he persevered and finally got his commercial airliner pilot license, having had training in 737 simulators.

Still, the final turn was done with an obvious lack of skill:

*The characterization of Hani's abilities, or lack thereof, could be erroneous.

Or not. Abilities may change over time, especially through training.

 

[Jango]

[2] does not follow from [1]. Hanjour could handle a Cessna. After being with the instructor that said "he couldn't fly at all" (which, by the way, also said that "There's no doubt in my mind that once [Flight 77] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it"), he persevered and finally got his commercial airliner pilot license, having had training in 737 simulators.

Still, the final turn was done with an obvious lack of skill:

[qimg]http://11-s.eu.org/11-s/Julio-descenso2.PNG[/qimg]


Or not. Abilities may change over time, especially through training.

Exactly. According to the F.B.I.'s detailed, yet strangely censored chronology of events, Hani began his training in the early 1990's. I don't recall the 9/11 Commission talking about or mentioning this aspect of Hani's background.

People are getting all bent out of shape over 'maybes'. Speculation. Apparently, they don't realize that all of my views are not concrete, but very fluid and evolving as more information is attained and internalized. In that vein of thought expansion, was Hani involved with KSM & Yousef & Co., or was he under bin Laden & al Qaeda? KSM & Yousef are responsible for the WTC bombing plot & their Bojinka plot was foiled. Hani was training, IIRC, before the WTC bombing. It is not unreasonable to ask if he was a co-conspirator in the Bojinka plot given that his flight training had began many years prior to 9/11 as well the Bojinka plot itself and as I said, IIRC, the WTC bombing too.

I don't anticipate an substantive reply to that conundrum. But that's where my POV is at. Actually getting to the truth of the matter. Do you agree that there is a lot of information about 9/11 in mainstream circles and because there is a lot of information about 9/11 in mainstream circles an already very complex event has an enormous amount of additional complexities introduced to it, such as when the media contradicts the government's official spoken line with the government's written classified line or the off-the-record spoken line (whistleblower)?

But working under the assumption that Hani was a part of the Bojinka plot, why keep that information secret? What implications does that reality create?

 

[beachnut]

... What the hell were they investigating and how did they not stumble upon the hijackers, ... ...

Do you mean flight training is training for hijackers? Did DB Cooper take flight training that would flag him as a hijacker? This makes no sense.

How do you stop something before it happens?

What does all your BS mean? How would Hani learning to fly, flag him as a terrorist, or hijacker? The world comes to the USA to learn to fly, why would pilot training before 911 mean anything other than rich Saudis fund flight training for nephews who want to be pilots.

Was the FBI looking for people who would rush the cockpit and cut the pilots' throats?

The only bright side to 911, the terrorists will find it hard to find anyone to hijack a plane, they don't come back. It will take 20 years for terrorists to trick the next generation into killing themselves. This is why middle east terrorism comes and goes, the current generation figures out how to hide from the nuts, and it takes the next generation of gullible nuts to start the next big die for paradise to come along.
Are you next generation of 911 truth BS pushers.

... some of whom that lived openly, trained on U.S. military bases ...

Name the hijacker who trained at a military base. You take lies and use them in a Gish Gallop.

Source the military base stuff. What you are doing now is posting standard lies and nonsense from 911 truth's playbook of woo. And you claim you are not a conspiracy theorist, because you know Boston was real, oops JFK, aliens, ... and 911.

 

[JayUtah]

People are getting all bent out of shape over 'maybes'. Speculation. Apparently, they don't realize that all of my views are not concrete, but very fluid and evolving as more information is attained and internalized.

It's not apparent. Say things like this more often and you'll get a lot more help and a lot less criticism.

But working under the assumption that Hani was a part of the Bojinka plot, why keep that information secret? What implications does that reality create?

What are the implications of mentioning it in one 9/11 narrative? I'm not trying to impose or shift a burden of proof, because you're dealing with an admitted conundrum. But conceive of all the motives you can think of.

For example, what if it just didn't fit the scope of the committee's report? There's no one magic degree of depth or breadth that applies to some report. Hence if you read a smattering of reports on any subject you'll get variation in what's reported. What I'm saying is that my criteria for relevancy may not be someone else's.

Or for another example, redactions take place for any number of reasons, not usually the one that you imagine. In law, for example, it's often to remove the names of people who are mentioned as part of discovered evidence, but who are not implicated in the matter. They have a right to privacy, not to be made part of that public record unless needed. It's not to conceal material facts from the jury.

Similarly in the military, redaction occurs not necessarily because they don't want you to know what they discovered, but in some cases they don't want to reveal how they discovered it. In intelligence, sometimes it's important not to reveal publicly everything that you know about something because you don't want to tip off the source.

I could speculate on and on, as could you. But it all comes down to the weighing of likelihoods. It's okay to be comfortable with ambiguity. You don't have to immediately ascribe sinister motives to the authors of a report because they left out something that you've suddenly decided was more important than that. Stop and think whether there might be legitimate reasons, disappointing though they may be. And stop and consider whether there are illegitimate reasons -- just not the specific ones you imagine.

 

[Gamolon]

With pleasure: Not everything is a conspiracy. The Moon Landing happened. Millions of Jews were exterminated by Hitler's decree. The Illuminati does not run the world. The Government does sometimes tell the truth. Alex Jones and David Icke, among many others, are snake oil salesmen. The U.S. mainstream media isn't controlled by the Government. All of the ills in the world are not the result of direct or indirect U.S. involvement. The Jews do not run the world. Boston Marathon bombing was not a hoax. Sandy Hook was not a hoax.

If I was as steeped in conspiracy rhetoric as you falsely claim I am, I would believe all of what I listed above, among many other notables, like no planes were used whatsoever on 9/11 and that either 1) nukes or 2) energy weapons from space caused the Twin Towers to collapse.

Should the hilited part read "I would NOT believe all of what I listed above" or do you think everything you listed IS a conspiracy of some sort?

 

[pgimeno]

Exactly. According to the F.B.I.'s detailed, yet strangely censored chronology of events, Hani began his training in the early 1990's. I don't recall the 9/11 Commission talking about or mentioning this aspect of Hani's background.

Citation, please?

The rest is too off-topic to entertain here. Plus, it really doesn't raise my interest.

 

[GlennB]

Citation, please?

The rest is too off-topic to entertain here. Plus, it really doesn't raise my interest.

I'm reading that he first came to the US in 1991 and returned in 1996. Some time after this he started flying lessons, so 1996 seems to be the earliest he might have started.

Jango has been yanking chains for quite some time now and this might be another example.