Offer to the Truth Movement: Let's Settle It

This guy could not solo a Cessna 150 ... and what I mean by solo is a pilot's first time out without anyone in the cockpit with him. It's the most simple, the most fundamental flying exercise one can engage in..."
WMV video download (588kB)


He didn't care about the fact that he couldn't get through the course." 1 Rick Garza, a flight instructor at Sorbi's Flying Club, had this to say about the two alleged hijackers originally thought to have piloted Flight 77, Khalid al-Mihdar and Nawaq al-Hamzi: "It was like Dumb and Dumber, I mean, they were clueless. It was clear they were never going to make it as pilots."


These are the two people who ACTUALLY CHECKED HIM OUT, NOT BERNARD :

In the second week of August 2001, Hanjour had attempted to rent a small plane from an airport in Bowie, MD. Flight instructors Sheri Baxter and Ben Conner declined his request, after taking Hanjour on three test runs, noting he had trouble controlling and landing the Cessna 172. Though Hanjour had attended a flight school in Scottsdale, AZ, for four months in 1996 and 1997, he never completed the coursework for a single-engine aircraft license. 2

Notice the word "controlling"

Also, as somebody obviously bothered to ask Bernard, who i agree said"he could hit a building"..but said NOTHING ELSE...one wonders why that question wasnt posed to the two people who actually checked him out. Any guesses???

I again await somebody posting when and by whom he was signed off on his commercial license. I would have to assume that info would be easy to find. Until then, ITS PURELY SPECULATION.
 
RedIbis said:
I tremble to think of how much snide mockery and scorn is about to be heaped upon this moderate and logical post.
Click to expand...


Why would anyone mock an ineducable dunce who, in his various identities, has had it explained to him dozens of times that flying Boeing airliners by remote-control would not have been possible? After all, every day is a new one. It is necessary to re-learn literally everything. Nothing that was true yesterday can be taken for granted today. Maybe today will be the day that some ignorant liar tells us what Apathoid got wrong.

Right?
 
roundhead said:
Regarding the transponder ... I quote the Washington Post:

Aviation sources said the plane was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm, possibly one of the hijackers. Someone even knew how to turn off the transponder, a move that is considerably less than obvious.
Click to expand...
Pilots have to learn about transponders. There goes this story down the tubes!

No, turning off a transponder does not get you shoot down. Do you make up this tripe up on your own?

You have failed to get anything right to support your fantasy. Failed post; you need to work on this, you ideas are still flawed after ignoring two air force instructors.

The plane was flown with no extraordinary skill, and a kid off the street can do it. I have taken kids with zero experience and they have flown big jets with enough skill to hit buildings, and have! Sorry, your ideas are bogus, but your sources and logic are flawed! When do you think you will use some logic to fix your faulty ideas? There is a place your false ideas will be accepted as gospel. p4t, the only pilots in the world who can't hit buildings when they try in the safety of a simulator!
 
pomeroo said:
I asked here and in a separate thread I started why the massive, multi-agency investigation that identified the hijackers hadn't solved the case. Evidently, you don't think it did or else you wouldn't waste so much time satisfying yourself that fantastic, absurd myths invented to deny reality are without merit. If hijackers really crashed planes into the Twin Towers, all the speculation about explosives that could not have been planted, in the judgment of demolition experts, looks every bit as silly as it is.

This is not the politics forum, as I'm often reminded. Perhaps you'd prefer to be described as someone who reflexively opposes American foreign policy.
Click to expand...

Your hatred of the American constitution and support of lying politicians is melting your already weakened logic to the extent that collapse is inevitable. NIST won't need to explain the collapse, but Bazant will say the top was rigid and the lies and hateful insults failed at the connections, if there were any to begin with.
 
roundhead said:
DONT LIE. Please. the guy you cite said only he was cabable of hitting a building. That guy didnt even fly with him. He said ZERO about him flying hundreds of miles and striking the Pentagon.

Those that did fly with him wouldnt rent him a plane.

Another instructor (commenting on him hitting the Pentagon)said he found it"incredible to this day".... That is way more "on point"

You lie, and you fail.


If the best you can do is cherrypick quotes that STILL dont buttress you extremely weak arguement, i feel for ya, bud.
Click to expand...


Uh, Child, given that you were banned, you're supposed to at least pretend to be someone new, know what I mean? You're not trying very hard. As a hint, it has something to do with your "voice."
 
GregoryUrich said:
Your hatred of the American constitution and support of lying politicians is melting your already weakened logic to the extent that collapse is inevitable. NIST won't need to explain the collapse, but Bazant will say the top was rigid and the lies and hateful insults failed at the connections, if there were any to begin with.
Click to expand...


Now, that's more like it! When people who want to fight the jihadists are accused of "hating the Constitution," I understand what I'm dealing with.

Thanks!
 
beachnut said:
On the Radar Scope the plane was going 300 KIAS, faster than the traffic they are use to seeing, and not under any ATC control. Both are dangerous for reasons you fail to comprehend. Your failed ideas are based on hearsay you interpret wrong.

Kind of makes your ideas double wrong! Wrong, wrong.

Sorry, the speed limit below 10,000 feet is 250 KIAS, the terrorist was going 300 KIAS, and did a turn over an airport area! The pilot never slowed down to 180 to 200 KIAS, most planes they are use to seeing in their area do! Sort of like the highway patrol saying you are a racecar driver when you are doing 90 mph in a 75 to 60 mph zone. Why are you unable to figure out flying? You should gain some knowledge on this subject, to a pilot you are showing ultimate ignorance of flying procedure, and present cherry picked ideas shown to be wrong years ago.

The military have waivers for some planes to go over the 250 KIAS airspeed! This is why a plane going 300 KIAS would be called a military flight. It was not the precision (there was no precision), it was the speed and the UNCONTROLLED actions. And you repeating without knowledge, is exposing your lack of knowledge.
Click to expand...




You are way out in right field here with this reasoning. The MINUTE the transponder gets turned off, Norad and its military radars are all over it. That is what they do for a living.

Do you think ICBM'S or Russian jets would have transponders on?

It was foolish for the highjackers to kick Norad in the face and throw an IMMEDIATE red flag up the second those transponders were turned off.

That SHOULD get fighters in the air ASAP.


The only logical explanation for those THREE planes to have the transponders turned off (and as i quoted earlier that isnt easy to know how to do to a novice)is to get the civilian people out of the way and INVOLVE only the military.

In the scheme of things, this greatly narrows those "in the know"removes civilians being in the loop, and allows the circle of insiders to control events without oversight, as it basically blinds civilian radar.
 
roundhead said:
This guy could not solo a Cessna 150 ... and what I mean by solo is a pilot's first time out without anyone in the cockpit with him. It's the most simple, the most fundamental flying exercise one can engage in..."
WMV video download (588kB)


He didn't care about the fact that he couldn't get through the course." 1 Rick Garza, a flight instructor at Sorbi's Flying Club, had this to say about the two alleged hijackers originally thought to have piloted Flight 77, Khalid al-Mihdar and Nawaq al-Hamzi: "It was like Dumb and Dumber, I mean, they were clueless. It was clear they were never going to make it as pilots."


These are the two people who ACTUALLY CHECKED HIM OUT, NOT BERNARD :

In the second week of August 2001, Hanjour had attempted to rent a small plane from an airport in Bowie, MD. Flight instructors Sheri Baxter and Ben Conner declined his request, after taking Hanjour on three test runs, noting he had trouble controlling and landing the Cessna 172. Though Hanjour had attended a flight school in Scottsdale, AZ, for four months in 1996 and 1997, he never completed the coursework for a single-engine aircraft license. 2

Notice the word "controlling"

Also, as somebody obviously bothered to ask Bernard, who i agree said"he could hit a building"..but said NOTHING ELSE...one wonders why that question wasnt posed to the two people who actually checked him out. Any guesses???

I again await somebody posting when and by whom he was signed off on his commercial license. I would have to assume that info would be easy to find. Until then, ITS PURELY SPECULATION.
Click to expand...


To maintain your status, it is important that you continue to refuse to read:

http://911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf
 
roundhead said:
This guy could not solo a Cessna 150 ... and what I mean by solo is a pilot's first time out without anyone in the cockpit with him. It's the most simple, the most fundamental flying exercise one can engage in..."
WMV video download (588kB)


He didn't care about the fact that he couldn't get through the course." 1 Rick Garza, a flight instructor at Sorbi's Flying Club, had this to say about the two alleged hijackers originally thought to have piloted Flight 77, Khalid al-Mihdar and Nawaq al-Hamzi: "It was like Dumb and Dumber, I mean, they were clueless. It was clear they were never going to make it as pilots."


These are the two people who ACTUALLY CHECKED HIM OUT, NOT BERNARD :

In the second week of August 2001, Hanjour had attempted to rent a small plane from an airport in Bowie, MD. Flight instructors Sheri Baxter and Ben Conner declined his request, after taking Hanjour on three test runs, noting he had trouble controlling and landing the Cessna 172. Though Hanjour had attended a flight school in Scottsdale, AZ, for four months in 1996 and 1997, he never completed the coursework for a single-engine aircraft license. 2

Notice the word "controlling"

Also, as somebody obviously bothered to ask Bernard, who i agree said"he could hit a building"..but said NOTHING ELSE...one wonders why that question wasnt posed to the two people who actually checked him out. Any guesses???

I again await somebody posting when and by whom he was signed off on his commercial license. I would have to assume that info would be easy to find. Until then, ITS PURELY SPECULATION.
Click to expand...
If he got a license, he did solo. Do you make this stuff up? Did the rules change since I first flew?

When you go to rent a plane, the people renting the plane want to fly with you. If you do not do well, they will fly with you until they deem you fit to fly their equipment. Sorry, Hani could have been practicing aiming only. Landing is hard to do and be right on the desired window. Aiming a plane to land, is easy if you do not mind a few accidents and death when you hit!

So far you arguments against the terrorist pilots is a failure. Who flew the jets, and why are you an expert hearsay false information man? Since the terrorist were able to fly jets into buildings what is your point? I know kids off the street with zero flying experience could hit buildings their first try, then your ideas are bogus. I have experience, training pilots in large jet aircraft, what makes your analysis better than a military pilot’s analysis? How do you make so many logical errors with the hearsay you have collected?

Looks like dumb and dumber worked for years and finally figured out flying. Is there hope you will persist and actually use logic one day, as the terrorist finally learned to fly? Are you looking this up as you go?

Hanjour gained his FAA commercial pilot certificate in April 1999, but was unable to get a job as a pilot after he returned to ...
Click to expand...
Darn, you sure do cherry pick your 9/11 truth junk.
Looks like Hani was more committed to flying then you are to finding facts! Why are you not as persistent at learning the truth, as Hani was at killing Americans?
 
Last edited:
roundhead said:
The above premise is debunkable, easily, by the statement, and by seemingly a concensus of Air Traffic Controllers watching that flight who have been oft quoted as staing , and i paraphrase " we controllers ALL thought it was a military plane"....refering to the maneuver he made descending.
I am sure you are aware of the direct quote.

So that was hardly ORDINARY, or something that happened often. It was in fact REMARKABLE, and noteworthy, even to those who watch planes daily for a living.
Click to expand...

Oh dear....

"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."
Click to expand...

one of those simile abuses again... :\

Don't you ever read quotes in context?

http://911guide.googlepages.com/griffin23
Source of quote^^
 
roundhead said:
You are way out in right field here with this reasoning. The MINUTE the transponder gets turned off, Norad and its military radars are all over it. That is what they do for a living.

Do you think ICBM'S or Russian jets would have transponders on?

It was foolish for the highjackers to kick Norad in the face and throw an IMMEDIATE red flag up the second those transponders were turned off.

That SHOULD get fighters in the air ASAP.


The only logical explanation for those THREE planes to have the transponders turned off (and as i quoted earlier that isnt easy to know how to do to a novice)is to get the civilian people out of the way and INVOLVE only the military.

In the scheme of things, this greatly narrows those "in the know"removes civilians being in the loop, and allows the circle of insiders to control events without oversight, as it basically blinds civilian radar.
Click to expand...

Oh, good Lord...

You really, really need to read the following:
Vanity Fair's "9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes"
The NORAD Response Revisited
Intercepts, NORAD, and the FAA
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3074230&postcount=20
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2795968&postcount=396
http://www.911myths.com/html/67_intercepts.html

Bottom line is that you're wrong about NORAD and military radars "being all over it", and the military getting jets in the air immediately to intercept a jet over the continental United States. That's not the way things worked back then.
 
pomeroo said:
To maintain your status, it is important that you continue to refuse to read:

http://911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf
Click to expand...



I have read your link, and rebutted, its assumption several time in my posts.

The papers author talks about how Burlingame might have been overcome strapped in...We have already showed he was in the back of the plane according to Olsen, seemingly unharmed. According to your article then, somebody must have brandished a boxcutter, and that was enough for him to get up (without issuing a highjack code also)..Not plausible AT ALL. Only one guy is going to get through that doorway at a time.Burlingame and his second would have been all over getting off the highjack and fending those trolls off with only boxcutters. Those THAT KNOW HIM, agree with my assesment and have been quoted saying the same, he wouldnt give up the stick.


Hani, to my knowledge, was never in a 757 simulator. Notice i said 757. As far as i know, he had NEVER flown a 737 or 757 till 9/11.

As far as i know, i have seen no documents backing up the claim he had a commercial license. If i am wrong, kindly prove it. The FBI hasnt been forthcoming with producing such documents.

As far as i know, i cant find ANY information that would state he did even a DECENT job involving ANY aspect of flying EVER.
 
Last edited:
roundhead said:
Ah, but you left out something didnt you??

He flew a plane he had even sat in hundreds of miles, convinced a war hero to leave the controls, turned off the transponder, made a "military acrobatic manuever", clipped light poles, put a jet a few feet off the deack ,and hit exactly what he was aiming at.
A few important points to ponder, wouldnt you say.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it have been a more remarkable and unlikely bit of piloting if he'd managed to avoid the light poles?

And the Pentagon has 3,705,793 square feet of office space, I'm not surprised at all that he hit was he was aiming at.
 
roundhead said:
The papers author talks about how Burlingame might have been overcome strapped in...We have already showed he was in the back of the plane according to Olsen, seemingly unharmed.
Click to expand...

No, "we" have not shown that. I know there are a lot of recent posts in this thread, but if you look back you'll see that your claim is unsupported by the evidence. Perhaps you missed the posts pointing that out when you were reading through the thread.
 
roundhead said:
I am not, nor have i ever said it didnt.

Lets say 77 did everything the Govt said it did. In other words 77 hit the Pentagon exactly where we are told it did.

If i am to feel comfortable even a little with that, i would need to reinforce my feeling by taking away variables that would make that story believable.

Those variable would to a great degree be:

1.Not having Hani flying the plane at impact.
2.Having Burlingame be a non factor.

You remove those two variables, the probabality of impact goes up dramatically.

In my mind, the only thing that neatly ties all this together, is remote control. This would also neatly tie up the NYC impacts as well.

We still have the effect of the light poles, but the likelyhood of the planes chances of sucess would be much greater, and in my mind way more believable.

Obviously, if what i say is in fact true, it would seem the known ability of the highjack pilots would be rendered moot. Whoever was in the cockpits wouldnt matter, and the probabilities of sucess would dramatically increase.

This might account for no highjack codes and turned off transponders as well. Additionally, no matter what weapons were on board, it would have no factor in the events at all.
Click to expand...

Why on earth, if it was remote control, that the flight path take it through poles?
 
roundhead said:
You are way out in right field here with this reasoning. The MINUTE the transponder gets turned off, Norad and its military radars are all over it. That is what they do for a living.
Click to expand...
You do not understand USA airspace.

Oops, you are wrong, I have turned off my transponder and the military was no all over me! You are wrong again.

You are making all this up as you go! I am a pilot, and you are making this up.
 
PanAm commercial pilot Ted Munda:



“And also in all four planes, if you remember, none of the planes ever switched on their transponder to the hijack code. There's a very, very simple code that you put in if you suspect that your plane is being hijacked. It takes literally just a split-second for you to put your hand down on the center console and flip it over. And not one of the four planes ever transponded a hijack code, which is most, most unusual. ...


That folks, is hard to imagine, in not just one plane, but several. In fact its INPLAUSIBLE.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom