Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Investigating 9/11 Florida flight training schools

Jazzz said:
It wasn't Atta who supposedly flew into the Pentagon, astonishing the air traffic controllers but Hani Hanjour, the pilot who was forbidden to rent a single-engine Cessna and was described as 'not being able to fly at all'.
Funny how you omitted to mention that the reason for their 'astonishment' was because he was flying the plane in an appallingly inappropriate manner!
"You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe." [O'Brien]
:rolleyes:

But are we going to have another collection of your selectively quoted, endlessly repeated 9/11 'truths' clogging up these forums again? No sir!

May I remind you again of our stand on threads that simply repeat the same thing over and over and over again with no new content being provided: they get binned.
 
Oh get a grip ed - scalyboy's thread consists of new material, and if WouldBe wants to ask a question on old ground it's perfectly fair to go over it, especially if he has his facts wrong.
 
DexterTCN said:
You're the one that constantly argues with him, fanning the flames of each thread where you both post. Turning a 10 post thread into a 5 page odysi, oddyseu.....uddisy.....epic. :p
Listen to the man editor!
 
Jazzz said:
Listen to the man editor!
Do you agree with Hopsicker's opinion that your hero Alex Jones, is "a second-stringer and also a budding plagiarist"?

Or his scathing dismissal of your other hero, Steven 'thermite' Jones -the university-distanced, religious nutjob who's published barking nonsense like, "Behold My Hands: Evidence for Christ's Visit in Ancient America"?

Oh, and I'm still not seeing anything new from you here.

<awaits inevitable prisonplanet links>
 
Jazzz said:
It wasn't Atta who supposedly flew into the Pentagon, astonishing the air traffic controllers but Hani Hanjour, the pilot who was forbidden to rent a single-engine Cessna and was described as 'not being able to fly at all'.

Atta is listed as having been on flight 11 (North Tower)

There was a :confused: smilie in that post.

From a link on your link
Hanjour gained his FAA commercial pilot's license in April 1999
So clearly he was able to fly.
 
WouldBe said:
So clearly he was able to fly.

Yes, and Hopsicker suggests that, in the cae of Atta at least, he was a good deal more experienced than he made himself out to be, at the flight training school - so experienced, in fact, that he was allowed to accompany trainees in cross-country flights as the co-pilot.
 
scalyboy said:
Yes, and Hopsicker suggests that, in the cae of Atta at least, he was a good deal more experienced than he made himself out to be, at the flight training school - so experienced, in fact, that he was allowed to accompany trainees in cross-country flights as the co-pilot.

The way I read Jazzz's link it says Atta only had a private pilots license which presumably like a car license would allow him to supervise trainee pilots.

Hanour had a commercial pilots license making him qualified to fly commercial aircraft.
 
editor said:
Do you agree with Jones' research and analysis that led him to conclude, "Behold My Hands: Evidence for Christ's Visit in Ancient America"?
I fear I cannot comment on that particular opus, I don't know what conclusions he made. In fact I have not read it at all, nor have I any particular interest in doing so.

Maybe you should try the philosophy section?
 
Jazzz said:
I fear I cannot comment on that particular opus, I don't know what conclusions he made. In fact I have not read it at all, nor have I any particular interest in doing so.
So you haven't bothered researching the methods, believability or credibility of the claims made by someone who you insist has discovered the 'truth' about the WTC collapse?

Why ever not?

:confused:
 
Good article by Matt Taibbi in a recent Rolling Stone - The Hopeless Stupidity of 911 Conspiracies. He also helpfully publishes a Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld planning meeting transcript...

BUSH: So, what's the plan again?

CHENEY: Well, we need to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. So what we've decided to do is crash a whole bunch of remote-controlled planes into Wall Street and the Pentagon, say they're real hijacked commercial planes, and blame it on the towelheads; then we'll just blow up the buildings ourselves to make sure they actually fall down.

RUMSFELD: Right! And we'll make sure that some of the hijackers are agents of Saddam Hussein! That way we'll have no problem getting the public to buy the invasion.

CHENEY: No, Dick, we won't.

RUMSFELD: We won't?

CHENEY: No, that's too obvious. We'll make the hijackers Al Qaeda and then just imply a connection to Iraq.

RUMSFELD: But if we're just making up the whole thing, why not just put Saddam's fingerprints on the attack?

CHENEY: (sighing) It just has to be this way, Dick. Ups the ante, as it were. This way, we're not insulated if things go wrong in Iraq. Gives us incentive to get the invasion right the first time around.

BUSH: I'm a total idiot who can barely read, so I'll buy that. But I've got a question. Why do we need to crash planes into the Towers at all? Since everyone knows terrorists already tried to blow up that building complex from the ground up once, why don't we just blow it up like we plan to anyway, and blame the bombs on the terrorists?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, you don't understand. It's much better to sneak into the buildings ourselves in the days before the attacks, plant the bombs and then make it look like it was exploding planes that brought the buildings down. That way, we involve more people in the plot, stand a much greater chance of being exposed and needlessly complicate everything!
 
editor said:
So you haven't bothered researching the methods, believability or credibility of the claims made by someone who you insist has discovered the 'truth' about the WTC collapse?

Why ever not?

:confused:
oh do run along, you are SO tedious
 
scalyboy said:
But surely if they were mere patsies, used to create a 'new Pearl Harbor' which would provide justification for the subsequent invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq (which I gather had already been planed prior to 9/11) - wouldn't it make more sense to use people from those 2 countries?
If anyone thinks the PNAC agenda - not to mention any forthcoming New World Order - is going to end with invasions of those two countries, they are much mistaken. They are mere moves on the chessboard for which 9/11 was the opening gambit.

I don't see that it mattered much where they were from in the Middle East, it certainly wouldn't matter to 99% of the American population.

edited further to add - even 70% of them still think that Saddam had something personally to do with 9/11!
 
Jazzz said:
oh do run along, you are SO tedious

And so are you, soooo tedious, since the only WTC tower that was 'demolished' was WTC7, containing the Secret Sevice, CIA Near East Division HQ, plus rather alot of Enron papers as well as the IRS.

Instead, you choose to discuss bollox conspiracy theories. :mad:
 
fishfinger said:
That's sad, but old news (2003). A more recent poll suggests that 51% see no link between Irag and the broader anti-terror effort.

See here.

The results are still rather sad, but at least it's an improvement.
Sorry you are right - I was thinking of more recent polls, that one just came up. 4 in 10 Americans STILL believe that Saddam was personally involved in 9/11 itself

http://albawabaforums.com/read.php3?f=3&i=187903&t=187871
 
tangentlama said:
And so are you, soooo tedious, since the only WTC tower that was 'demolished' was WTC7, containing the Secret Sevice, CIA Near East Division HQ, plus rather alot of Enron papers as well as the IRS.

Instead, you choose to discuss bollox conspiracy theories. :mad:
If you agree that WTC7 was demolished, that's the whole 9/11 story out of the window :confused:

As for tedious... well, I have my moments but I couldn't possibly hold a candle to editor on these threads ;)
 
Jazzz said:
Sorry you are right - I was thinking of more recent polls, that one just came up. 4 in 10 Americans STILL believe that Saddam was personally involved in 9/11 itself
If you want to play the stupid poll game:

America remains an intensely religious nation and, if anything, the trend since the late 1980s has been toward stronger religious belief. Eight-in-ten Americans (81%) say that prayer is an important part of their daily lives, and just as many believe there will be a Judgment Day when people will be called before God to answer for their sins. Even more people (87%) agree with the statement "I never doubt the existence of God."
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=757
 
Indeed editor - they are hardly going to quibble about which exact Allah-loving Middle Eastern regime the 9/11 hijackers came from before bombing the crap out of it
 
Jazzz said:
Indeed editor - they are hardly going to quibble about which exact Allah-loving Middle Eastern regime the 9/11 hijackers came from before bombing the crap out of it
Quite the daftest 9/11 conspiracy wriggling 'argument' you've desperately concocted for some time.

Congratulations!
 
Jazzz said:
I'm afraid you've lost me completely. But doubtless you are correct :confused:
Apologies, I thought you were offering an excuse why the hijackers (or "patsies for the holographic invisible missiles from the year 2025" as you'd put it) weren't from the countries that America wanted an excuse to attack.

But that's probably what you were inferring anyway.
 
Er...getting back to the Hopsicker site/book, the 911myths.com conspiracy-debunking site seems to think that he may have been mistaken, specifically on Amanda Keller's claiming to be Atta's girlfriend:

About a third of the way down, para begins: "You might have seen the other stories"

whilst arguing that there may be something to Hopsicker's other claims, in that there are various other witnesses.

Alternatively, as Hopsicker argues, Ms Keller may have changed her story in the light of pressure from the authorities, or as I might suggest, her presumably being inundated with loads of hate mail/death threats from angry people who disapproved of her choice of boyfriend!

(There's also interesting info on Takfir on this link, towards the end).
 
4 in 10 Americans STILL believe that Saddam was personally involved in 9/11 itself

About the same number who believe there was a conspiracy/cover-up/controlled demolition of the towers...so out there somewhere is an intelligent 20%?
 
kyser_soze said:
About the same number who believe there was a conspiracy/cover-up/controlled demolition of the towers...so out there somewhere is an intelligent 20%?

You don't think there was any form of cover-up then? Not even a cover-up of official incompetence, or of inadequate emergency plans?
 
I don't need to think there was, I know there was - the Pentagon attempting to cover it's arse over the condition of the Air Defence Radar system (i.e. it didn't work due to budget cuts). I've also listened to the tapes of the conversations between the ATC controllers, and what I took from that was a lot of very panicked people who basically weren't sure what was going on, were receiving contradictory reports from different sources and above all else, took some time to react to the reality of the situation.

Have a looksee among the 9/11 threads - there's one link to a really good article about how because of Giuliani's insistence on using Motorola radios that the NYFD had already complained didn't work inside buildings prevented more people from being evacuated, as well as saving NYFD lives when the 2nd tower collapsed as they could have been told to get out.

There are MANY scandals, cover-ups and messy politics from 9/11 that are basically ignored by the conspiracy-seekers because they aren't sexy but have equally been covered up and the history re-written to cast Giuliani as some kind of benificent figure who held the city together.

The plans were fine - the execution of them, from the possible wilful ignoring of the CIA/FBI threat assesment (if that Woodward claim turns out to be true of course) to the NYFD having shit comms equipment, is where it all went to crap.

But that's all very dull and boring - it's not Kennedy getting his head blown off or anything exciting. No - it's dull and boring admin shit the same way Watergate and the Iran-Contra affair were boring, paper based, admin shit.
 
Back
Top Bottom