bajabum
Newbie
Yea those are a joke. Most people in the know claim it was one of these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=R2Slx2KyZ6I
-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
WTC 11/9/2001 - conspiracy or not?
- Thread starter Slug
- Start date
Yea those are a joke. Most people in the know claim it was one of these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=R2Slx2KyZ6I
And most people WHO ACTUALLY SAW IT know that it wasn't.
bajabum
Newbie
This was taken from Pilots for Truth website:
Pilots For 9/11 Truth
So, who pulled off this stunt?
Hani Hanjour. Reported to have 600TT and a Commercial Certificate (see quotes right margin). Hani tried to get checked out in a 172 a few weeks prior at Freeway Airport in MD. Two seperate CFI's took Hani up to check him out. Baxter and Conner found that Hani had trouble controlling and landing a 172 at 65 knots. Bernard, the Chief CFI, refused to rent him the 172. I have instructed many years. I have soloed students in 172's when i had 300 hours as a CFI. How anyone could not control a 172 at 600TT and a Commercial is beyond me. Flight Schools keep going till you "get it" if you are a bit rusty, and then rent you the plane. They are in business to make money after all. .right? The Chief CFI basically refused any further lessons and basically told him to get lost. All this can be confirmed through google searches.
Later, a week after Sept 11. Bernard, the Chief CFI, made a statement saying, "although Hani was rejected to rent a 172, i have no doubt he could have hit the pentagon." What?? Bernard, who didnt even fly with Hani, doesnt know the maneuver involved, where the plane hit, the speeds, etc etc.. says he has no doubts that he could hit the pentagon? Sure, my grandma could hit the pentagon. How about looking into the maneuver before making that statement? He made that statement while the pentagon was still smoking for petes sake. A bit of monday morning quarterbacking if you ask me. A common theme among inexperienced pilots. This also can be verified via google searches.
So, to sum up. Hani Hanjour, took a 757, with zero time in type, did the maneuver described above, a 400 knot 330 degree sprialing dive at 2500 fpm, only gaining 30 knots, then 30 knots more descending from 2200 feet at full power, with a very steady hand as to not overshoot or hit the lawn, inside ground effect, at 460 knots impact speed, but was refused to rent a 172 cause he couldnt land it at 65 knots? C'mon... sounds like a bad B movie... Please see right margin for more testimony regarding Hani and his training.
My conclusion is, the manever looks possible, for guys like me and you. But for Hani? unlikely. He either got REALLY lucky, or someone/something else was flying that plane. Sure wish we had clear video of a 757 hitting the pentagon to silence all these "Conspiracy theorists". They want us to believe the pentagon is only covered by a parking gate camera? C'mon...
For anyone wanting to do further research on the subject. Almost all the circumstances surrounding 9/11 have similar scenarios. Hell, they didnt even match up the parts found at each site to their airframes via maintainence logs. There is an article out there that states all the parts were returned to United two weeks after Sept 11. Why... so they could refurbish them to put in their parts dept? This is evidence from a crime scene. You dont give it back to the airline. They claim insurance and its over with.
Pilots For 9/11 Truth
So, who pulled off this stunt?
Hani Hanjour. Reported to have 600TT and a Commercial Certificate (see quotes right margin). Hani tried to get checked out in a 172 a few weeks prior at Freeway Airport in MD. Two seperate CFI's took Hani up to check him out. Baxter and Conner found that Hani had trouble controlling and landing a 172 at 65 knots. Bernard, the Chief CFI, refused to rent him the 172. I have instructed many years. I have soloed students in 172's when i had 300 hours as a CFI. How anyone could not control a 172 at 600TT and a Commercial is beyond me. Flight Schools keep going till you "get it" if you are a bit rusty, and then rent you the plane. They are in business to make money after all. .right? The Chief CFI basically refused any further lessons and basically told him to get lost. All this can be confirmed through google searches.
Later, a week after Sept 11. Bernard, the Chief CFI, made a statement saying, "although Hani was rejected to rent a 172, i have no doubt he could have hit the pentagon." What?? Bernard, who didnt even fly with Hani, doesnt know the maneuver involved, where the plane hit, the speeds, etc etc.. says he has no doubts that he could hit the pentagon? Sure, my grandma could hit the pentagon. How about looking into the maneuver before making that statement? He made that statement while the pentagon was still smoking for petes sake. A bit of monday morning quarterbacking if you ask me. A common theme among inexperienced pilots. This also can be verified via google searches.
So, to sum up. Hani Hanjour, took a 757, with zero time in type, did the maneuver described above, a 400 knot 330 degree sprialing dive at 2500 fpm, only gaining 30 knots, then 30 knots more descending from 2200 feet at full power, with a very steady hand as to not overshoot or hit the lawn, inside ground effect, at 460 knots impact speed, but was refused to rent a 172 cause he couldnt land it at 65 knots? C'mon... sounds like a bad B movie... Please see right margin for more testimony regarding Hani and his training.
My conclusion is, the manever looks possible, for guys like me and you. But for Hani? unlikely. He either got REALLY lucky, or someone/something else was flying that plane. Sure wish we had clear video of a 757 hitting the pentagon to silence all these "Conspiracy theorists". They want us to believe the pentagon is only covered by a parking gate camera? C'mon...
For anyone wanting to do further research on the subject. Almost all the circumstances surrounding 9/11 have similar scenarios. Hell, they didnt even match up the parts found at each site to their airframes via maintainence logs. There is an article out there that states all the parts were returned to United two weeks after Sept 11. Why... so they could refurbish them to put in their parts dept? This is evidence from a crime scene. You dont give it back to the airline. They claim insurance and its over with.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
Which is extremely odd because it doesn't explain why every one on the beltway saw an airplane or the black boxes they found since cruise missiles don't typically carry them. It also doesn't explain what really happened to the plane since it's wreckage was found at the Pentagon and no where else and the bodies of the passengers were found at the Pentagon. Maybe they put all of them on the cruise missile? So many unanswered questions.
Tempusfugit
Android Enthusiast
Can a mod please close this thread or remove me as the OP... I mostly jokingly responded to a thread, and don't need my name attached to this.
Besides, the people who disagree with me won't answer any questions.
Besides, the people who disagree with me won't answer any questions.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
I think people answered all of your questions. Your main questions were about how WTC 7 fell and you were ultimately linked to the NIST report which basically the definitive word on the subject. What more could you want?
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
I love how experts are quoted and then completely dismissed because it doesn't make sense to a non-expert. I love everyone sitting in traffic who saw a plane hit the Pentagon are completely wrong just because we don't have a video to back it up. The evidence we found is completely consistent with a plane, but without video evidence, it proves nothing. Not a single eyewitness reported seeing a missile, but their testimony doesn't count. I would like to see this article you're talking about. It's not unusual for plane crash parts to be returned to airlines though.
My "reason for edit" should have made it clear that this topic originated elsewhere. However in deference to your wishes I've clarified the point further in the OP.