9/11 media happenings

[beesonthewhatnow]

The flight schools got in touch with local CIA agents to warn them

This I don't doubt, it's the bit about them being shit pilots that IIRC was not quite what was said.

 

[editor]

I fail to see how your analogy has any decent comparison in it really.

Let me explain: landing a heavy aircraft safely = hard
Pointing it at huge object filling the skyline = a lot easier

 

[fela fan]

I was skeptical, but apparently although you are right on the limit it is possible.


You're missing the point - as it was explained to me, a modern simulator is exactly the same as the real thing. Any factors you care to chuck in - bad weather, poor visability, failure of components etc can be replicated. If you can do it in the sim, you can do it in the real thing.

No i've not missed the point. I was thinking of psychologoical factors which underpin all human activity.

And are we to assume that the hijackers practised slamming their simulated jet into big tall towers? Or just that they could land them?

And i'm sorry, i just cannot accept at all that a jumbo jet could do a loop. "Apparantly" ain't good enough for me i'm afraid mate.

I wonder if i can think of any pilots i know? I'm getting interested in this again.

 

[fela fan]

This I don't doubt, it's the bit about them being shit pilots that IIRC was not quite what was said.

No i think it was precisely coz they were shit, and of middle-east origin, that they deemed it worthwhile contacting the local cia agents.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

And i'm sorry, i just cannot accept at all that a jumbo jet could do a loop. "Apparantly" ain't good enough for me i'm afraid mate

<shrugs> Well, it seems nothing is!



I was told this by an experienced pilot, I have no reason to doubt him, and it's kinda irrelevant to this debate anyway...

 

[editor]

No i've not missed the point. I was thinking of psychologoical factors which underpin all human activity.

And are we to assume that the hijackers practised slamming their simulated jet into big tall towers? Or just that they could land them?

And i'm sorry, i just cannot accept at all that a jumbo jet could do a loop. "Apparantly" ain't good enough for me i'm afraid mate.

I wonder if i can think of any pilots i know? I'm getting interested in this again.

http://www.bootsnall.com/guides/05-10/747-fly-a-loop.html

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_262.html

 

[fela fan]

Let me explain: landing a heavy aircraft safely = hard
Pointing it at huge object filling the skyline = a lot easier

Exactly as you say this, yes agreed.

But that ain't what happened exactly.

Firstly one of the planes came in towards the tower banking quite sharply.

Secondly the pentagon is not a 'huge object filling the skyline'. That plane crashed into a low building at an altitude of perhaps two to five metres.

That seems to me to need a highly skilled pilot at the helm.

 

[fela fan]

<shrugs> Well, it seems nothing is!



I was told this by an experienced pilot, I have no reason to doubt him, and it's kinda irrelevant to this debate anyway...

Fair enough on all counts. But one of the consistent things on these threads is those decrying 'conspiracy theorists' of just believing anything they want to, of believing anything that fits their bill.

All i ever point out is that they do the same thing. Not meaning yourself in particular, but it's a common thing.

Like i often say, nearly all of the stuff on 911 threads is just conjecture. Without facts and evidence what else could it be?

Seems to me the only way of ever getting to the bottom of the whole historical event is to pursue the intelligence aspect of it all.

 

[8den]

IIRC this is actually conspiraloon misquoting/bullshit. Sure someone here will have links.

As always fela fan spouting bullshit guff

Jarrah and Hanjour also received additional training and practice flights in the early summer.A few days before departing on his cross-country test flight, Jarrah flew from Fort Lauderdale to Philadelphia, where he trained at Hortman Aviation and asked to fly the Hudson Corridor, a low-altitude "hallway" along the Hudson River that passes New York landmarks like the World Trade Center. Heavy traffic in the area can make the corridor a dangerous route for an inexperienced pilot. Because Hortman deemed Jarrah unfit to fly solo, he could fly this route only with an instructor.

Hanjour, too, requested to fly the Hudson Corridor about this same time,at Air Fleet Training Systems in Teterboro, New Jersey, where he started receiving ground instruction soon after settling in the area with Hazmi. Hanjour flew the Hudson Corridor, but his instructor declined a second request because of what he considered Hanjour's poor piloting skills. Shortly thereafter, Hanjour switched to Caldwell Flight Academy in Fairfield, New Jersey, where he rented small aircraft on several occasions during June and July. In one such instance on July 20, Hanjour--likely accompanied by Hazmi--rented a plane from Caldwell and took a practice flight from Fairfield to Gaithersburg, Maryland, a route that would have allowed them to fly near Washington, D.C. Other evidence suggests that Hanjour may even have returned to Arizona for flight simulator training earlier in June.
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-259.html

Settling in Mesa, Hanjour began refresher training at his old school,Arizona Aviation. He wanted to train on multi-engine planes, but had difficulties because his English was not good enough.The instructor advised him to discontinue but Hanjour said he could not go home without completing the training. In early 2001, he started training on a Boeing 737 simulator at Pan Am International Flight Academy in Mesa.An instructor there found his work well below standard and discouraged him from continuing.Again, Hanjour persevered; he completed the initial training by the end of March 2001.
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-243.html
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-244.html

As I've explained in at least one prior column, Hani Hanjour's flying was hardly the show-quality demonstration often described. It was exceptional only in its recklessness. If anything, his loops and turns and spirals above the nation's capital revealed him to be exactly the shitty pilot he by all accounts was. To hit the Pentagon squarely he needed only a bit of luck, and he got it, possibly with help from the 757's autopilot. Striking a stationary object -- even a large one like the Pentagon -- at high speed and from a steep angle is very difficult. To make the job easier, he came in obliquely, tearing down light poles as he roared across the Pentagon's lawn.

It's true there's only a vestigial similarity between the cockpit of a light trainer and the flight deck of a Boeing. To put it mildly, the attackers, as private pilots, were completely out of their league. However, they were not setting out to perform single-engine missed approaches or Category 3 instrument landings with a failed hydraulic system. For good measure, at least two of the terrorist pilots had rented simulator time in jet aircraft, but striking the Pentagon, or navigating along the Hudson River to Manhattan on a cloudless morning, with the sole intention of steering head-on into a building, did not require a mastery of airmanship. The perpetrators had purchased manuals and videos describing the flight management systems of the 757/767, and as any desktop simulator enthusiast will tell you, elementary operation of the planes' navigational units and autopilots is chiefly an exercise in data programming. You can learn it at home. You won't be good, but you'll be good enough.

"They'd done their homework and they had what they needed," says a United Airlines pilot (name withheld on request), who has flown every model of Boeing from the 737 up. "Rudimentary knowledge and fearlessness."

"As everyone saw, their flying was sloppy and aggressive," says Michael (last name withheld), a pilot with several thousand hours in 757s and 767s. "Their skills and experience, or lack thereof, just weren't relevant."

"The hijackers required only the shallow understanding of the aircraft," agrees Ken Hertz, an airline pilot rated on the 757/767. "In much the same way that a person needn't be an experienced physician in order to perform CPR or set a broken bone."

That sentiment is echoed by Joe d'Eon, airline pilot and host of the "Fly With Me" podcast series. "It's the difference between a doctor and a butcher," says d'Eon.
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2006/05/19/askthepilot186/

Incidently fela fan where have you picked up the 2-5 meters "factoid" from. Did you pluck it from thin air?

The established height for the final seconds of the flight is between 30 to 50 feet, or about 10 meters to about 16 meters.

"Apparantly" ain't good enough for me i'm afraid mate

So on one hand fela knows theres problems with the intelligence, but doesn't know what the problems are or even what "intelligence" is. And he thinks David Kelly was killed but doesn't have any facts or evidence.

Apparently, "apparently" isn't good enough for him when he chooses it.

 

[8den]

Seems to me the only way of ever getting to the bottom of the whole historical event is to pursue the intelligence aspect of it all.

Remind me what is the intelligence aspect?

 

[fela fan]

This I don't doubt, it's the bit about them being shit pilots that IIRC was not quite what was said.

"Zacarias Moussaoui trains at the Pan Am International Flight School in Minneapolis, Minnesota, where he pays $8,300 ($1500 by credit card and the remainder in cash) to use a Boeing 474 Model 400 aircraft simulator. After just one day of training most of the staff is suspicious that he is a terrorist, especially after they discuss with him “how much fuel [is] on board a 747-400 and how much damage that could cause if it hit anything.” Staff members call the FBI with their concerns later that day. [New York Times, 2/8/2002; US Congress, 10/17/2002] They are suspicious because: "

There then follows various reasons. If interested, scroll down to just before half the page. Granted this man is not mentioned for his shit flying, that is atta and one other. But i've done enough searching for one night!

If you read the whole page, it seems inconceivable that these attacks could have been allowed to happen after so much intelligence telling them about forthcoming attacks. Note it is one of six pages, and if you have even more time and read the whole timeline, then i challenge you or anyone to say that the US were guilty of incompetence. It seems the only possible answer is that they let it happen for whatever reason...

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/...imeline&timeperiod=2001 - 0:05am 11 Sept 2001

 

[editor]

It seems the only possible answer is that they let it happen for whatever reason...

That's your interpretation and there's no evidence to support that unless you believe in the US services are incapable of negligence, laziness, stupidity and/or incompetence.

After all, a whole scientific team of top experts managed to send a $125 million orbiter crashing into Mars because they fucked up the metric/imperial measurements just two years previously.

http://edition.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric.02/

 

[8den]

"
If you read the whole page, it seems inconceivable that these attacks could have been allowed to happen after so much intelligence telling them about forthcoming attacks. Note it is one of six pages, and if you have even more time and read the whole timeline, then i challenge you or anyone to say that the US were guilty of incompetence. It seems the only possible answer is that they let it happen for whatever reason...

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/...imeline&timeperiod=2001 - 0:05am 11 Sept 2001

I particularly like the James Woods connection "Hey that freaky actor guy from Videodrome warned us, Oh NOES".

See the problem here fela fan is that you assume this was the only intelligence about the only potential terrorist threat the US faced, as if this material was in a vaccum. No there were loads of other reports of other threats to the US. The coperative research timeline is disingenious, as it ignores this fact.

 

[MikeMcc]

I particularly like the James Woods connection "Hey that freaky actor guy from Videodrome warned us, Oh NOES".

See the problem here fela fan is that you assume this was the only intelligence about the only potential terrorist threat the US faced, as if this material was in a vaccum. No there were loads of other reports of other threats to the US. The coperative research timeline is disingenious, as it ignores this fact.

Also that it was in some way dealt with centrally, where each datum could be compared to all the others, rather than in field offices dotted all over the country working pretty much autonomously.

 

[fela fan]

Also that it was in some way dealt with centrally, where each datum could be compared to all the others, rather than in field offices dotted all over the country working pretty much autonomously.

Pah, you should read some of it. Fucking shedloads got to the central nerve stations, so much so that cia director tenet was warning of a huge terrorist event on the horizon.

Plenty of field agents from various offices had requests turned down by the head office.

What you're saying here is the opposite of what happened. And you also betray an ignorance of how intelligence gathering occurs. What the fuck is the point of field offices if they never take their information to the central office????

 

[MikeMcc]

Pah, you should read some of it. Fucking shedloads got to the central nerve stations, so much so that cia director tenet was warning of a huge terrorist event on the horizon.

Plenty of field agents from various offices had requests turned down by the head office.

What you're saying here is the opposite of what happened. And you also betray an ignorance of how intelligence gathering occurs. What the fuck is the point of field offices if they never take their information to the central office????

Tenet had problems in relating to other senior government members.

Didn't say the never passed the information on, but they do filter it to try an eliminate false leads, some of the evidence was dismissed at a low level but has subsequently been gone over with the benefit of hindsight. I hate to tell you this but information passing is the biggest bugbear in all major organisations. That it should have been recognised, should have been passed on, should have been coordinated to recognise the patterns, should have raised warnings about the method of attack, is the paradigm. It simply doesn't happen like that, thinking otherwise ignores the obvious fact that it was being dealt with by a number of different, large, organisations.

It's all well and good shouting about it now, but even Tenet didn't have details of the plot, just indicators that there would be an attack soon.

 

[kyser_soze]

in fairness to FF, he's bang on about Tenet warning Bush et al - that's the crux of Woodwards most recent book, and the thing that the 'truth' movement should be focussing on - LIHOP or LIHBA...

Tenet had problems in relating to other senior government members.

And that I suspect is why he wasn't listened to. Plus my comments made somewhere else about Condi's geopol outlook being cold war, suspicion at the intel that Clinton passed on etc...

 

[Jazzz]

Ah interesting call. The thing is Jazzz that Joenko, while still believing WTC7 was a controlled demolition, he is equally firm as to his believe that WTC1&2 were not destroyed by a controlled demolition.

See if you believe Joenko is an expert and his opinion is valid, and right you cannot hold him as proof that WTC 7 was a demolition job, while at the same time disregarding his opinion that WTC 1&2 weren't demolition jobs.

So Jazzz is it

a) Joenko is right and WTC 1&2 weren't brought down in a CD.

b) Joenko is wrong, and we get to dismiss him outright.

Do you want to have your cake Jazzz? Or eat your cake? Cause you sure as fuck can't do both.

I think you are missing the point that it only takes one sound objection to dismiss a theory. WTC7 is certainly that sound objection. And Jowenko echoes it.

It would be an interesting question to put to him 'is it not likely that if one was a CD then so must the others?'. He concedes on the video that the collapses of 1&2 'look like' CD, but doesn't believe it for reasons of practicality. I suggest he is wrong about the practicality and that extraordinary lengths would have been gone to to make it happen. He's also confused about the practicality of the collapse for WTC7, once he's told that it came down on the same day. However despite this, he remains in no doubt that it was CD.

 

[editor]

I think you are missing the point that it only takes one sound objection to dismiss a theory. WTC7 is certainly that sound objection. And Jowenko echoes it.

What?!!! I doesn't take a solitary "objection" in the form of an opinion to dismiss a theory.

It takes research, evidence and a strict methodology. Jowenko has an opinion but it's not supported by any evidence or, indeed, anyone from the vast demolition/explosives industry. Why is that do you think?

Oh, any news on the qualifications of this Ryan guy yet?

 

[kyser_soze]

Worth pointing out that when scientists put their stuff up for peer review in something like Nature, the review panel is not made up of people who quite CLEARLY have an interest in seeing the hypothesis proven, which that list of peer reviewers clearly do - they are all 9/11 truthers of one shade or other.

 

[Jazzz]

Likewise a voice recording from an unidentified source, if it was a video interview I'd be more prepared to believe it. Why was he speaking dutch in the two video clips and excellent english in the 'interview'?

When he was interviewed for Dutch TV he speaks Dutch yet when a Canadian guy calls up and asks him questions in English over the phone he responds in English... amazing!

Every Dutch person I've ever met spoke excellent English. I think you are being somewhat facetious here. You have no business casting doubt on this recording when your only evidence that he changed his mind in the first place was some anonymous piece of hearsay which isn't even on the internet anymore!

 

[editor]

Every Dutch person I've ever met spoke excellent English. I think you are being somewhat facetious here. You have no business casting doubt on this recording when your only evidence that he changed his mind in the first place was some anonymous piece of hearsay which isn't even on the internet anymore!

Talking of checking sources, what's the qualifications of this Kevin Ryan bloke please?

 

[MikeMcc]

When he was interviewed for Dutch TV he speaks Dutch yet when a Canadian guy calls up and asks him questions in English over the phone he responds in English... amazing!

Every Dutch person I've ever met spoke excellent English. I think you are being somewhat facetious here. You have no business casting doubt on this recording when your only evidence that he changed his mind in the first place was some anonymous piece of hearsay which isn't even on the internet anymore!

Well bad luck, I've lost count of all the manufactured rubbish that has been presented as 'evidence' by CTers that I certainly can't take that seriously. I admit the statement I used was used facetiously but if you can use misquotes and hearsay, then so can the rest of us!

in the WTC1/2 interview he specifically states that the detonators would cook off in the fire, in the WTC7 interview he his giving his opinion based on statements that he is spoon fed by the interviewer. He gives his statement that it looks like a CD job, then he is told about the time-line and the fact that the building was on fire. Funnily enough his responses then become more unsure, and those are just the ones that have been edited to be shown.

 

[Jazzz]

Well, I'm sure you could do what that Canadian guy did and call him yourself. I think the handling of that portion of the interview was very fair - the rest of the programme was certainly no conspiracy-fest as we've seen. Yes, of course he becomes unsure when forced to reconcile the CD he's just witnessed with the fact that it must have been rigged in advance.

 

[editor]

Well, I'm sure you could do what that Canadian guy did and call him yourself.

Or you could just leave the poor fucking bloke alone as I'm sure he doesn't need any more conspiraloon pretend journalists ringing him up with their twisted agenda (if they did indeed call him).

Why don't you give the guys from Protec a call and explain to them that they've got their facts wrong? And exactly why are you ignoring all the other expert testimony and opinions from the entire demolition industry?

Still waiting for details of Kevin Ryan!

 

[8den]

I think you are missing the point that it only takes one sound objection to dismiss a theory. WTC7 is certainly that sound objection. And Jowenko echoes it.

Er no. The collaspe of WTC 7 is completely irrelevant to the collapse of WTC 1&2. Did WTC 7 effect the collapse of WTC 1&2?

We'll chalk logic in the catergory of stuff Jazzz knows nothing about.

It would be an interesting question to put to him 'is it not likely that if one was a CD then so must the others?'. He concedes on the video that the collapses of 1&2 'look like' CD, but doesn't believe it for reasons of practicality. I suggest he is wrong about the practicality and that extraordinary lengths would have been gone to to make it happen. He's also confused about the practicality of the collapse for WTC7, once he's told that it came down on the same day. However despite this, he remains in no doubt that it was CD.

So if I have this clear he's an expert but clearly not as qualified as you to make assesments about what actually happened.

How fucking priceless is this, how arrogant. You wheel out an expert to agree with you, and when he disagrees with you, you announce that you're more qualified to assess the logistics than your own expert.

 

[Jazzz]

Er no. The collaspe of WTC 7 is completely irrelevant to the collapse of WTC 1&2. Did WTC 7 effect the collapse of WTC 1&2?

We'll chalk logic in the catergory of stuff Jazzz knows nothing about.


So if I have this clear he's an expert but clearly not as qualified as you to make assesments about what actually happened.

How fucking priceless is this, how arrogant. You wheel out an expert to agree with you, and when he disagrees with you, you announce that you're more qualified to assess the logistics than your own expert.

You're the one seeking to 'dismiss him entirely'. What was that you were saying about logic? What chutzpah.

The point is Jowenko cannot reconcile the collapse of WTC7 with the official version. That is quite enough for us to say that an expert has rejected the official version of events. He's not 'my' expert. I don't have to 'wheel out' experts to agree with me about everything in order to question the official nonsense.

 

[Jazzz]

That song just got, err.... it has a video

 

[8den]

You're the one seeking to 'dismiss him entirely'. What was that you were saying about logic? What chutzpah.

He's not my expert. He's not published anything. He's your expert. I'm just pointing out your absurd paradox.

The point is Jowenko cannot reconcile the collapse of WTC7 with the official version. That is quite enough for us to say that an expert has rejected the official version of events.

Event fuckwit. Event. He confirms other aspects. Do you see the problem here?

You've got a expert he supports one aspect of the conspiracy theory and he rejects another. You holdd him up as a expert provided he agrees with you. When he stops agreeing with you, you

suggest he is wrong about the practicality

Number of buildings Jazzz has wired to CD <1
Number of buildings Jowenko has wired to CD>1

How can you hold him up to be an expert in one sentence, and then suggest he's wrong about something that falls in his area of expertise within the same breath.

He's not 'my' expert. I don't have to 'wheel out' experts to agree with me about everything in order to question the official nonsense.

or in english

He's not 'my' expert. I don't have any experts to 'wheel out' to agree with me about everything in order to question the official story.

 

[8den]

Pah, you should read some of it. Fucking shedloads got to the central nerve stations, so much so that cia director tenet was warning

hang on isn't this the same fela who claims that he doesn't believe most of what he reads.

Tell me Fela, what makes you believe these stuff? And why?