Offer to the Truth Movement: Let's Settle It

[Smackety]

It is hard to fight when you feel warm blood flowing across your chest! I doubt you have time to start a fight when you are bleeding out. Are you another no fact truther, or just making fun of dead pilots?

Making fun of dead pilots, what are you doing?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

My post 857 seems to cleary state Norad's abilities.

Anybody who refutes the ability of our military air defenses to survey with great detail anything going on over this entire continent is brainwashed.

No, your post did not address NORAD's capabilities. In fact, you've gotten them wrong. For starters, you said:

"NORAD uses a network of ground-based radars, sensors and fighter jets to detect, intercept and, if necessary, engage any threats to the continent."

Transponders help to filter out all identifiable aircraft for NORAD and allow them to focus on those craft that are unidentified. An aircraft flying without a transponder gets special attention. NORAD must have known when each of the transponders in the four "suicide" jets was turned off, and must have known immediately. At all times, NORAD must have known the location of each of the four planes. (See expanded discussion of NORAD's surveillance capabilities in Part II, in section "NORAD vs. FAA — Who Sees What?" http://www.Public-Action.com/911/noradsend2.html .)

The reality is different. To begin with, the network of ground-based radars, "sensors" (whatever that means), and fighter jets was oriented towards intercepting threats originating from outside the continental US. There was (and to the best of my knowledge, still isn't) and fully active, full, border to border system of primary radar.

At some locations within the ATC en route environment, secondary-radar-only (no primary radar) gap filler radar systems are used to give lower altitude radar coverage between two larger radar systems, each of which provides both primary and secondary radar coverage. In those geographical areas served by secondary-radar only, aircraft without transponders cannot be provided with radar service. Additionally, transponder equipped aircraft cannot be provided with radar advisories concerning primary targets and weather.
FAA Aeronautical Information Manual
February 19, 2004

http://www.airborneinternet.com/AI6.htm

In areas where there's no primary radar coverage, once a transponder gets shut off, there's simply no return. That jet is lost. In the case of American Airlines Flight 77, for example, that was actually the working assumption of the Indianapolis air traffic control when it disappeared from their scopes. They first thought it was a malfunction, then when the pilots didn't respond, they assumed it was a crash. No one outside the airplane knew AA77 was heading towards the Pentagon until it was finally picked up on primary radar minutes before it hit.

Gumboot here in this forum has written extensively about NORAD's response that day. Here's a very relevant post:

Primary Radar coverage (which is what he's talking about) is on the FAA side of things. It's not quite as simple as he thinks - full primary coverage is turned on by manually flicking a switch on the console, it's not something that happened automatically (at least not prior to 9/11).

In Class A controlled airspace if the radar data processor (the computer that decides what radar data to display on a particular screen) loses a secondary return (from the transponder) it will drop the primary as well.

The controller can bring the primary back up by turning on their full primary coverage.

On 9/11 three flights turned off their transponders - UA175 didn't turn the transponder off - the code was just changed.

AA11 and UA93 were immediately picked up by controllers on primary and continued to be track. AA77 went missing in an area that didn't have primary radar coverage which is why it was lost.

Now the FAA can continue to track the flight on primary until such point as it drops below radar coverage. Radars don't see right to the deck and FAA radars filter out low altitude radar returns because at low altitude you get what's called "ground clutter" which is unwanted radar returns off things in close proximity to the ground such as trees, buildings, birds, insects, and so on.

AA11 dropped below radar coverage at about 0842. Up until that point the FAA knew where AA11 was.

This is only half the solution though - NORAD need to know where the aircraft is.

NORAD get their radar feeds from a series of long range radar sites around the perimeter of the USA that form what's called the Joint Surveillance System (JSS). The FAA use these radars too.

However while the FAA filters out unwanted ground clutter, NORAD actually enhances sensitivity. They're looking outward over the ocean (where there's very little surface clutter) and they're on the look out for low level radar-avoiding enemy aircraft. So they need to be able to see anything.

The problem is that it makes their coverage over the USA virtually useless because it's packed with ground clutter. As a result NORAD couldn't find AA11 on their radar scopes. For this reason the fighters from Otis were directed to a coordinate north of New York which was at the time the last known position for AA11. The idea was they would simply run down every radar track within a radius of that point using their own inboard radars, and by a process of elimination locate AA11.

All of this is of course academic because by the time the Otis fighters were airborne AA11 didn't exist any more.

Expecting that jets shutting down their transponders initiates an immediate military response is drawing a conclusion ignorant of the facts. That's not the way things worked prior to 9/11. Besides which, why is there the assumption that a transponder shutdown would concern the military to begin with? A track that originates from outside the US and which never had a transponder signal would of course be of concern, but a track that had a transponder signal but then lost it would be assumed to be first a malfunction, or, in the event that the pilots didn't respond to ATC prompting, a crash. Neither of those cases would elicit a military response. Why should they, especially in the face of transponder malfunctions being assumed well before anything else?

The govt (as Griffin clearly pointed out in Ommisions and Distortions with references) changed the intercept LIE 3 times.

The FACT is a large jet flying around the Eastern US with transponder off, for a good 40 minutes, and hitting the Pentagon with air assets only a couple of minutes away is incredible.

The fact a lot of you around here actually believe that, and swallow information that trys to diminish the seeming effectivness our our military radar systems boggles the mind of a sane person(me).

As a former electronics/systems troubleshooter in the USN 30 years ago, I am well aware of technology radar and firecontrol wise that existed even back then.

To honestly believe that plane flew around that long without intercept is absolutely horse poopy.With no transponder on.

You guys should know better than that.

If you know the technology, why don't you understand the difference between primary and secondary radar coverage, and why do you assume that once the transponder signal is lost that a military response is initiated? Why do you also assume that alert fighters are immediately available? Back in your day, when the Cold War was in full swing, maybe, but in 2001, the number of such was drastically reduced. Remember, for example, that Andrews AFB did not have any fighters on any sort of alert status at all. On September 11th, NORAD had a grand total of seven bases on alert status, and as noted before, they were oriented towards threats coming in from outside the US borders. Not problems originating over US territory.

You may be aware of the radar techonology that existed back then, but you've demonstrated that you're not at all aware of the protocols between the FAA and NEADS during 9/11. You really, really need to read at minimum the Vanity Fair link I provided, which interviewed ATC and military personnel that were actually involved in the response that day. You keep on pushing mistakes that people in the military should know better than to make, especially in regards to the protocol of intercepts. Again, please read the available information, and try to gain an understanding of what actually happened that day. Pushing the conspiracy line with links to nothing but conspiratorial sites doesn't cut it.

 

[roundhead]

Hmm...start a fight in the cockpit and guarantee that everyone will die, or surrender and hope it is a hijack like all previous hijacks where the victims are eventually released?

After likely being aware of the two impacts at that point????

 

[lapman]

After likely being aware of the two impacts at that point????

Please provide proof that the pilots were aware that two other hijacked aircraft were flown into buildings.

 

[roundhead]

No, your post did not address NORAD's capabilities. In fact, you've gotten them wrong. For starters, you said:



The reality is different. To begin with, the network of ground-based radars, "sensors" (whatever that means), and fighter jets was oriented towards intercepting threats originating from outside the continental US. There was (and to the best of my knowledge, still isn't) and fully active, full, border to border system of primary radar.


http://www.airborneinternet.com/AI6.htm

In areas where there's no primary radar coverage, once a transponder gets shut off, there's simply no return. That jet is lost. In the case of American Airlines Flight 77, for example, that was actually the working assumption of the Indianapolis air traffic control when it disappeared from their scopes. They first thought it was a malfunction, then when the pilots didn't respond, they assumed it was a crash. No one outside the airplane knew AA77 was heading towards the Pentagon until it was finally picked up on primary radar minutes before it hit.

Gumboot here in this forum has written extensively about NORAD's response that day. Here's a very relevant post:



Expecting that jets shutting down their transponders initiates an immediate military response is drawing a conclusion ignorant of the facts. That's not the way things worked prior to 9/11. Besides which, why is there the assumption that a transponder shutdown would concern the military to begin with? A track that originates from outside the US and which never had a transponder signal would of course be of concern, but a track that had a transponder signal but then lost it would be assumed to be first a malfunction, or, in the event that the pilots didn't respond to ATC prompting, a crash. Neither of those cases would elicit a military response. Why should they, especially in the face of transponder malfunctions being assumed well before anything else?



If you know the technology, why don't you understand the difference between primary and secondary radar coverage, and why do you assume that once the transponder signal is lost that a military response is initiated? Why do you also assume that alert fighters are immediately available? Back in your day, when the Cold War was in full swing, maybe, but in 2001, the number of such was drastically reduced. Remember, for example, that Andrews AFB did not have any fighters on any sort of alert status at all. On September 11th, NORAD had a grand total of seven bases on alert status, and as noted before, they were oriented towards threats coming in from outside the US borders. Not problems originating over US territory.

You may be aware of the radar techonology that existed back then, but you've demonstrated that you're not at all aware of the protocols between the FAA and NEADS during 9/11. You really, really need to read at minimum the Vanity Fair link I provided, which interviewed ATC and military personnel that were actually involved in the response that day. You keep on pushing mistakes that people in the military should know better than to make, especially in regards to the protocol of intercepts. Again, please read the available information, and try to gain an understanding of what actually happened that day. Pushing the conspiracy line with links to nothing but conspiratorial sites doesn't cut it.

Honestly, since becoming interest in 9/11 in 2006, i have read everything i can get my hands on, from both sides. I mean this sincerely.

Regarding Andrews, i have read a lot, even the probably well know story regarding they're website pre and post 9/11 and they're mission task.

The Canadian link i posted way back in post 857 is clear regarding Norads mission.

I think the hardest thing for the govt has been making excuses for the lack of intercepts. From saying we were looking outward (a lie)to saying we had only a small ahandful of fighters on the ready, to saying without the transponder on it has hard to find 77...what a crock of dung.

According to the AP, even as far back as 72, Nixon had a conference regarding highjackings and how to handle them.

The lame idea nobody thought of domestic highjackings is ludicrous, and even at that, the unlikelyhoood of nobody being intercepted is zero, if a standdown wasnt ordered.


Heck Russia shot down a super secret, supersonic, spy plane of ours 50 years ago

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Let me summarize the quite easy complete beatdown i have administered to you official lie slurpers.


1. Hani is a very poor pilot

That's true. He had difficulty maintaining altitude in a turn. Although it's possible that he did indeed want to lose altitude during the famous "grand circle" people debate, but his poor ability to handle the jet is indeed established by a simple reading of the FDR's data, and his poor handling of the aircraft.

But that doesn't mean he couldn't point it at a large building and fly the plane into it. Not being able to fly a jet smoothly is one thing; hitting a 5 story building covering acres is another, and Hanjour's poor skills no more preclude hitting the Pentagon than a 5 year old's poor driving skills precludes him or her from running the parent's car into their house.

2.Hani did incredible things

If you're discussing the turn and the low altitude, no, they were not "incredible". The grand turn may have been done faster and lower than the best practices the airline industry has established, but it's hardly outside his abilities. And the fact that he had to fly low for a couple of seconds is to be expected, considering that his target was a building on the ground!

3.Hani had never flown nor even been in a 757 simulator

Irrelevant. He did some time in a 737 simulator. But regardless, the fact that he was experienced enough to have a pilots license was enough for him to fly AA77 into the Pentagon. He may not have had the skills to fly smoothly and well like a commercial pilot, but his objective was not to give his passengers an uneventful ride.

4.All transponders were turned off on all flights
5.No highjack codes were transmitted by any airline pilots

That's been discussed already. That is an indication that the hijacking took place rather quickly, and that the pilots had no opportunity to set the code. Nothing more.

6.Transponders being turned off puts Norad on high alert

Incorrect. That's been discussed here and in other threads. Loss of transponders initiates an ATC communication to the pilot asking what's going on. In the event of no response, it initiates a search for a crashed jetliner.

Besides which, you forget that the Flight 175 hijackers did not turn the transponder off. That flight was known to have shuffled its transponder codes during the flight. So even if you were right about NORAD's response - you're not, but if you were - you'd only be right about 3 of the 4 flights. UA175 would not have drawn a military response, even under your assumptions.

7.Norad and the military had intercept aircraft minutes away from the Pentagon

And none of them were on alert status. On top of that, Flight 77 only came back onto primary radar coverage mere minutes before it hit. Before that, the assumption was that it crashed. And the search for the flight was taking place along it's route; no one else knew it had doubled-back and was flying east again.

8.77 flew around 40 minutes(at least)not being intercepted with no transponder on

Again, you presume that an interception would have automatically taken place. And, you ignore the fact that, had any military jets been scrambled, they would have been sent to the last known location of the jet, which would've been somewhere over Ohio, if I remember correctly. The real figure to give is "5 minutes": Flight 77 appeared on primary radar at Washington Dulles at 9:32am. It impacted at 9:37am.

9.Friends of Burlingame state he wouldnt have given up control of the plane(77)
10.There is ZERO evidence he was harmed in any way(and some in fact that he wasnt)

That people stated that Burlingame wouldn't have given up control is supposition, not fact. Fact is, Hanjour was in control of that flight, so something convinced him to go. Or, he was killed, and Barbara Olsen's statement about talking to the pilot actually meant she talked to the co-pilot. What do we have to say about the post mortem results that suggests Burlingame was in a struggle and died before the crash?

11.No intercepts occurred at all on 9/11. 93 is for another day.

And if you understood the communications problems and protocols between the various ATC sites and NEADS, you'd understand why.

12.Military brass stated that because of wargames, we were even better prepared than normal that morning.

Which ignores the fact that the front line wasn't the military on 9/11, it was the air traffic control system. Those people were the ones responsible tracking aircraft and identifying what was happening. Once the military was informed, they did the best they could, but with only minutes to go, what could they have done?

Again, you must read the Vanity Fair NORAD article, as well as Gumboot's work. You seem to suffer from the misapprehension that the minute the transponders shut off (and remember, only 3 of the 4 aircraft did this) that any response would have been automatic.

Doesnt paint a pretty picture fellas, to the official story. And only "Hani did incredible things"is mildly debatable.

Incorrect. All of your points have either already been refuted in the past, or are based on misrepresentations.

 

[lapman]

Honestly, since becoming interest in 9/11 in 2006, i have read everything i can get my hands on, from both sides. I mean this sincerely.

No you don't. You have only looked at one side, and done so very poorly at that.

The Canadian link i posted way back in post 857 is clear regarding Norads mission.

Nowhere on there does it state that they launch aircraft for every aircraft that loses transponder return.

I think the hardest thing for the govt has been making excuses for the lack of intercepts.

As opposed to your copious use of "Truth Movement" lies?

From saying we were looking outward (a lie)

Wrong

to saying we had only a small ahandful of fighters on the ready,

True statement

to saying without the transponder on it has hard to find 77

Another true statement

...what a crock of dung.

The only dung is every single word that you are posting. You have shown a complete lack of even rudimentary knowledge of everything that you are posting about.

According to the AP, even as far back as 72, Nixon had a conference regarding highjackings and how to handle them.

And none of those involved multiple hijackings with the intent of crashing the aircraft into buildings. How many dealt with hijackings originating within the continental US?

The lame idea nobody thought of domestic highjackings is ludicrous, and even at that,

Yeah, because we have them all the time.

the unlikelyhoood of nobody being intercepted is zero, if a standdown wasnt ordered.

Which is completely unsupported by reality.

Heck Russia shot down a super secret, supersonic, spy plane of ours 50 years ago

Of course, you are completely bereft of any knowledge of what the capabilities of the U-2 is.

I didn't think it could happen, but your credibility has lowered even more with that idiotic statement. BTW, how many of those flights originated within the USSR?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Honestly, since becoming interest in 9/11 in 2006, i have read everything i can get my hands on, from both sides. I mean this sincerely.

Regarding Andrews, i have read a lot, even the probably well know story regarding they're website pre and post 9/11 and they're mission task.

The Canadian link i posted way back in post 857 is clear regarding Norads mission.

I think the hardest thing for the govt has been making excuses for the lack of intercepts. From saying we were looking outward (a lie)to saying we had only a small ahandful of fighters on the ready, to saying without the transponder on it has hard to find 77...what a crock of dung.

According to the AP, even as far back as 72, Nixon had a conference regarding highjackings and how to handle them.

The lame idea nobody thought of domestic highjackings is ludicrous, and even at that, the unlikelyhoood of nobody being intercepted is zero, if a standdown wasnt ordered.


Heck Russia shot down a super secret, supersonic, spy plane of ours 50 years ago

If you've read everything you could get your hands on, why do you continue to get basic facts wrong? You have yet to take into account the ATC/FAA handoff to NEADS before any sort of military response happens. That right there was a significant source of delay. Again, I use Flight 77 as an example: Once that flight dropped off of radar, the assumption was first a transponder malfunction, then a crash. The military did not even know about Flight 77 until minutes before it crashed.

Please. Read the Vanity Fair article, and Gumboot's work. You're continuing to commit basic errors of fact in your posts. Calling the fact there were only 7 alert bases, none of which included Andrews in Washington, a crock of dung just denies reality. So does including the transponder/primary radar coverage error in your assessment. You are missing basic information and pushing basic errors, and if I can see that - I being someone who's only passingly familiar with the details of the NORAD response, and certainly not being up to the level of Gumboot, Reheat, or Beechnut here - then your information is seriously lacking.

Please... the information is out there. I urge you to read it. Relying on conspiracy peddling sites is no way to get informed.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70300
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2795968&postcount=396
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/norad,faa,ntsb,aircraftcapabilities,pilo

 

[beachnut]

Honestly, since becoming interest in 9/11 in 2006, i have read everything i can get my hands on, ...

Heck Russia shot down a super secret, supersonic, spy plane of ours 50 years ago

You are funny!

The supersonic plane was not! It was a U-2, that is sub sonic! If your research is this bad on things you could get right, no wonder you fantasy is so far off!
In 1987, a West German kid piloted his rented Cessna to land next to Red Square! How does this fit your logically twisted ideas and conclusions of air defense?

You prove with each post, you have zero credibility/ability to discover the truth, and fail to get simple facts correct. Is this why your conclusions are so far off?

 

[roundhead]

For some reason this statement was taken down post 9/11 on Andrews web site. It was there right up till 9/11



Training for air combat and operational airlift for national defense is the 113 this primary mission. However, as part of its dual mission, the 113th provides capable and ready response forces for the District of Columbia in the event of natural disaster or civil emergency. Members also assist local and federal law enforcement agencies in combating drug trafficking in the District of Columbia



Seems straightforward enough to me to think with a known problem a plane flying around in US airspace for 48 minutes would be intercepted.

Why in the world would Andrews change the mission statement.............




Edit, i misspoke about the U2 being supersonic, and about 175's transponder, and readily admit same.

 

[Smackety]

For some reason this statement was taken down post 9/11 on Andrews web site. It was there right up till 9/11



Training for air combat and operational airlift for national defense is the 113 this primary mission. However, as part of its dual mission, the 113th provides capable and ready response forces for the District of Columbia in the event of natural disaster or civil emergency. Members also assist local and federal law enforcement agencies in combating drug trafficking in the District of Columbia



Seems straightforward enough to me to think with a known problem a plane flying around in US airspace for 48 minutes would be intercepted.

Why in the world would Andrews change the mission statement.............




Edit, i misspoke about the U2 being supersonic, and about 175's transponder, and readily admit same.

If it really is straightforward - can you tell me how many commercial airliners have been intercepted and shot down in US airspace?

If the answer is zero, maybe you are just making things up?

 

[beachnut]

For some reason this statement was taken down post 9/11 on Andrews web site. It was there right up till 9/11



Training for air combat and operational airlift for national defense is the 113 this primary mission. However, as part of its dual mission, the 113th provides capable and ready response forces for the District of Columbia in the event of natural disaster or civil emergency. Members also assist local and federal law enforcement agencies in combating drug trafficking in the District of Columbia



Seems straightforward enough to me to think with a known problem a plane flying around in US airspace for 48 minutes would be intercepted.

Why in the world would Andrews change the mission statement.............




Edit, i misspoke about the U2 being supersonic, and about 175's transponder, and readily admit same.

I don't think Andrews had alert birds on 9/11. Think you need to work on this like your U-2, and 175 squawk stuff. All your ideas are based on faulty logic and partial information.

Hani did practice in a jet simulator, and all your conclusions are based on partial information you twist to your preconception of what you think the conclusions should be. You will really be mad when you find out 9/11 truth has made up the false conclusions you are now spewing.

 

[lapman]

Training for air combat and operational airlift for national defense is the 113 this primary mission. However, as part of its dual mission, the 113th provides capable and ready response forces for the District of Columbia in the event of natural disaster or civil emergency. Members also assist local and federal law enforcement agencies in combating drug trafficking in the District of Columbia

Interesting, there is no mention of how long that "ready response" is supposed to take. Of course, you're going to claim that it would take seconds without a shred of evidence to support that.

Seems straightforward enough to me to think with a known problem a plane flying around in US airspace for 48 minutes would be intercepted.

Again, you're wrongly assuming that the military responds to every missing transponder return. They only had 2 minutes, not 48.

Why in the world would Andrews change the mission statement.............

Um, maybe their mission changed post 9/11? It does happen.

Edit, i misspoke about the U2 being supersonic, and about 175's transponder, and readily admit same.

Here's a first. Now it's time for you to admit to all the many other times you "misspoke."

 

[roundhead]

If it really is straightforward - can you tell me how many commercial airliners have been intercepted and shot down in US airspace?

If the answer is zero, maybe you are just making things up?

That quote is right from Andrews web site.Do you dispute this?


Do you dispute, that as Andrews had "ready aircraft" they couldnt have intercepted 77 even if called at the "officially"amended time of 10:30.
Those aircraft could have been there at least 3 minutes early, a lifetime in aviation.

The constantly morphing response "lie" is to me very good evidence of the standdown.

I am well aware incompetence seems to be at the heart of the story, but sending planes out to sea, having wargames going on the same morning, for one reason/excuse or another, missing four intercepts, lying and saying we were looking outward (that lie really bugs me). None of it adds up to the truth.

 

[roundhead]

Is this statement false?? If so why?



Standard operating procedures dictate that if an FAA flight controller notices anything that suggests a possible hijacking--if radio contact is lost, if the plane's transponder goes off, or if the plane deviates from its flight plan--the controller is to contact a superior. If the problem cannot be fixed quickly--within about a minute--the superior is to ask NORAD--the North American Aerospace Defense Command--to scramble jet fighters to find out what is going on. NORAD then issues a scramble order to the nearest Air Force base with fighters on alert. On 9/11, all the hijacked airliners occurred in NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector, which is known as NEADS. So all the scramble orders would have come from NEADS.

The jet fighters at the disposal of NEADS could respond very quickly: According to the US Air Force website, F-15s can go from "scramble order" to 29,000 feet in only 2.5 minutes, after which they can then fly over 1800 miles per hour (140). (All page numbers given parenthetically in the text are to David Ray Griffin, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions). Therefore--according to General Ralph Eberhart, the head of NORAD--after the FAA senses that something is wrong, "it takes about one minute" for it to contact NORAD, after which, according to a spokesperson, NORAD can scramble fighter jets "within a matter of minutes to anywhere in the United States" (140). These statements were, to be sure, made after 9/11, so we might suspect that they reflect a post-9/11 speed-up in procedures. But an Air Traffic Control document put out in 1998 warned pilots that any airplanes persisting in unusual behavior "will likely find two [jet fighters] on their tail within 10 or so minutes" (141).

 

[roundhead]

Anybody find any proof yet that Hani did indeed have a commercial license, and if so would they post the details of same.

I wont hold my breath.

 

[Drudgewire]

*sigh*

 

[applecorped]

That quote is right from Andrews web site.Do you dispute this?


Do you dispute, that as Andrews had "ready aircraft" they couldnt have intercepted 77 even if called at the "officially"amended time of 10:30.
Those aircraft could have been there at least 3 minutes early, a lifetime in aviation.

The constantly morphing response "lie" is to me very good evidence of the standdown.

I am well aware incompetence seems to be at the heart of the story, but sending planes out to sea, having wargames going on the same morning, for one reason/excuse or another, missing four intercepts, lying and saying we were looking outward (that lie really bugs me). None of it adds up to the truth.

You have a naive view of what constitutes evidence and truth.

 

[applecorped]

Anybody find any proof yet that Hani did indeed have a commercial license, and if so would they post the details of same.

I wont hold my breath.

Please, hold your breath. I'll get back to you in ten minutes.

 

[beachnut]

Anybody find any proof yet that Hani did indeed have a commercial license, and if so would they post the details of same.

I wont hold my breath.

You are not very good at this!

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Hani_Hanjour