FBI, the mob, and 9/11

[Evan Burton]

Maggie,

1. What screen name a member here chooses to use on another forum is none of our business. It has nothing to do with what Len posts here. If you have an issue with what Len posts here, then take him to task here.

2. I am not "pouncing" on Jack. John put out a PM regarding avatars some time ago, saying that members who did not comply were to have their posts stopped until they did comply. I took the bio to be equally important as it is a similar rule (John can say if this is so, or not). Jack was given several warning, and offered every assistance to comply with the Forum rules. If he chooses not to abide by the Forum rules, then he must accept the consequences. If ANY other member makes the same omission, then they will be asked in the same way to comply. I cannot understand why this is so difficult to understand.

But which is the real LEN? And why the need for an alias?

It is quite simple: Len's real name is the name he uses here - UNLESS he has received permission from John or Andy (NOT me or other Mods) to use an alternate.

Do you mean to say that you use your real name on all the forums you post on? If so, I must say you are being very foolish and leave yourself open to spam / hacking / identity theft / etc. You'll find that the Forum here is an exception to the rule; most members of other forums do NOT use their real names. In many cases it is discouraged.

[Antti Hynonen]

I have also asked Ms. Hansen to kindly post a proper avatar today, in fact moments ago.

If a recognizable avatar is a requirement for one, it is a requirement for all members.

[Maggie Hansen]

Maggie,

1. What screen name a member here chooses to use on another forum is none of our business. It has nothing to do with what Len posts here. If you have an issue with what Len posts here, then take him to task here.

2. I am not "pouncing" on Jack. John put out a PM regarding avatars some time ago, saying that members who did not comply were to have their posts stopped until they did comply. I took the bio to be equally important as it is a similar rule (John can say if this is so, or not). Jack was given several warning, and offered every assistance to comply with the Forum rules. If he chooses not to abide by the Forum rules, then he must accept the consequences. If ANY other member makes the same omission, then they will be asked in the same way to comply. I cannot understand why this is so difficult to understand.

But which is the real LEN? And why the need for an alias?

It is quite simple: Len's real name is the name he uses here - UNLESS he has received permission from John or Andy (NOT me or other Mods) to use an alternate.

Do you mean to say that you use your real name on all the forums you post on? If so, I must say you are being very foolish and leave yourself open to spam / hacking / identity theft / etc. You'll find that the Forum here is an exception to the rule; most members of other forums do NOT use their real names. In many cases it is discouraged.

Yes, actually I do. I do not belong to many forums but I use my name. It is also traditional for persons writing for 'peer reviewed' journals to use their real names and academic qualifications. As would be known to some here if not Len. No, I don't care what name Len uses anywhere else. Just here and that is the point. And you are all allowed to receive your plain brown paper wrapped magazines to your P.O. boxes as well. Really, I don't mind.

[Antti Hynonen]

Maggie Hansen Posted Today, 10:29 AM

QUOTE(Evan Burton @ Aug 8 2008, 07:38 AM)

QUOTE(Maggie Hansen @ Aug 8 2008, 03:47 PM)

QUOTE(Evan Burton @ Aug 8 2008, 06:41 AM)

Maggie,

1. What screen name a member here chooses to use on another forum is none of our business. It has nothing to do with what Len posts here. If you have an issue with what Len posts here, then take him to task here.

2. I am not "pouncing" on Jack. John put out a PM regarding avatars some time ago, saying that members who did not comply were to have their posts stopped until they did comply. I took the bio to be equally important as it is a similar rule (John can say if this is so, or not). Jack was given several warning, and offered every assistance to comply with the Forum rules. If he chooses not to abide by the Forum rules, then he must accept the consequences. If ANY other member makes the same omission, then they will be asked in the same way to comply. I cannot understand why this is so difficult to understand.

But which is the real LEN? And why the need for an alias?

It is quite simple: Len's real name is the name he uses here - UNLESS he has received permission from John or Andy (NOT me or other Mods) to use an alternate.

Do you mean to say that you use your real name on all the forums you post on? If so, I must say you are being very foolish and leave yourself open to spam / hacking / identity theft / etc. You'll find that the Forum here is an exception to the rule; most members of other forums do NOT use their real names. In many cases it is discouraged.

Yes, actually I do. I do not belong to many forums but I use my name. It is also traditional for persons writing for 'peer reviewed' journals to use their real names and academic qualifications. As would be known to some here if not Len. No, I don't care what name Len uses anywhere else. Just here and that is the point. And you are all allowed to receive your plain brown paper wrapped magazines to your P.O. boxes as well. Really, I don't mind.

Yes, actually I do. I do not belong to many forums but I use my name. It is also traditional for persons writing for 'peer reviewed' journals to use their real names and academic qualifications. As would be known to some here if not Len. No, I don't care what name Len uses anywhere else. Just here and that is the point. And you are all allowed to receive your plain brown paper wrapped magazines to your P.O. boxes as well. Really, I don't mind.

Glad to se you stating the above. This being the case you should have no objections to posting a proper photograph as an avatar.

[Maggie Hansen]

I have also asked Ms. Hansen to kindly post a proper avatar today, in fact moments ago.

If a recognizable avatar is a requirement for one, it is a requirement for all members.

Antti,

John Simkin posted my bio and photo. He did not reject it. He posted it. If he now rejects it I will make an appointment with Annie Leibowitz first thing in the morning and you will have a new photo very soon there after.

In the mean time I am feeling rather singled out and attacked (even though my bio link works and all) so I will wait until I hear John's thoughts on this matter. I also expect that the rules will be universally applied and the others with dodgy photos (including Lens by the way, not face on or very clear, could be anyone) will be required to change their photos at the same time.

[Antti Hynonen]

Maggie Hansen Posted Today, 10:52 AM

QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ Aug 8 2008, 07:53 AM)

I have also asked Ms. Hansen to kindly post a proper avatar today, in fact moments ago.

If a recognizable avatar is a requirement for one, it is a requirement for all members.

Antti,

John Simkin posted my bio and photo. He did not reject it. He posted it. If he now rejects it I will make an appointment with Annie Leibowitz first thing in the morning and you will have a new photo very soon there after.

In the mean time I am feeling rather singled out and attacked (even though my bio link works and all) so I will wait until I hear John's thoughts on this matter. I also expect that the rules will be universally applied and the others with dodgy photos (including Lens by the way, not face on or very clear, could be anyone) will be required to change their photos at the same time.

Ok, thanks.

I will check with Simkin asap. Any others not complying must change their photos as well, that is the way I see it.

If you can produce one of the same quality as Len's and showing as much of your face as in his, I'll consider that being in compliance.

Antti

[Len Colby]

Mr. Brazil opined that a photo I posted was not of Church and Murray because the buildings

are wrong. He does not know the territory. One building has been remodeled since 2001 and

the windows coniguration is different.

I will be doing a series of studies showing what went on at Church and Murray on 9-11.

This is the first. It will take a while to do the others, since I am busy.

First, so you know the territory, look at this Google street scene.

Jack

(error in graphic revised)

Yes I stand corrected the corner was Church and Murray but was correct and your wrong about it NOT being the corner where the part was found so your study was useless, another of your blunders. Speaking of which once you get your bio straightened out perhaps you can explain how the sun simultaneously shining on opposite sides of the same building.

[Len Colby]

Maggie wrote:

Why should I believe this guys opinion? Others have the opinion that he was a hopeless flyer, qualified or not. He was not able to rent a plane from one airport because they were not confident enough in his flying ability.

One of Hanjour's teachers said he could not believe it was him that flew the plane into the pentagon as he just couldn't fly at all. Am I supposed to discount what his teacher said in favour of this guy?

(bold added)

Evan replied by providing a link and a comment:

Maggie,

Some of the quotes have been distorted by some people. See what was really said about the hijacker's flying abilities:

http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_school_dropouts.html

A very important point to note is that they were not being asked to fly precision approaches in bad weather, or deal with inflight emergencies; they simply had to guide the aircraft to a target.

From the link Evan provided: "Some of the quote about Hanjour is correct (“I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all”)."

Pretty much just as Maggie stated.

The 911myths website offers this as their reference: http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?...hanjourwarnings

A quick reading will show that Maggie's concerns were understated. And that her question remains unanswered.

Hanjour had several months of flight training and earned 2 licenses after that and of course was not the only quote on the page assessments of Hanjour were mixed

FBI agents have questioned and administered a lie detector test to one of Hanjour's instructors in Arizona who was an Arab American and had signed off on Hanjour's flight instruction credentials before he got his pilot's license.

That instructor said he told agents that Hanjour was "a very average pilot, maybe struggling a little bit." The instructor added, "Maybe his English wasn't very good."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/10/...ain508656.shtml

170. FBI report, "Summary of Penttbom Investigation," Feb. 29, 2004, pp. 52¬57. Hanjour successfully conducted a challenging certification flight supervised by an instructor at Congressional Air Charters of Gaithersburg, Maryland, landing at a small airport with a difficult approach.The instructor thought Hanjour may have had training from a military pilot because he used a terrain recognition system for navigation. Eddie Shalev interview (Apr.9, 2004)

"Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said"

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/Newsday_com.htm

Bernard was the guy who refused to rent him a plane.

http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_school_dropouts.html

The author of the page missed this

When she heard about the Sept. 11 hijackings, "I already knew in my heart that Hani was a part of it," Chevrette said. She recalled driving to work when she learned that a plane had hit the Pentagon after two planes had already struck the World Trade Center in New York.

"I think that's the thing that just snapped," she said, recalling her realization that it was a terrorist attack. "I remember crying all the way to work, knowing that our company helped do this."

http://www.theairlinehub.com/2006/03/emoti...at_moussao.html

Peggy Chevrette ran the flight school where he trained in Arizona

So Maggie's question has been reletively well replied to and has been previously discusseed here.

Edited August 8, 2008 by Len Colby

[Michael Hogan]

So Maggie's question has been reletively (sic) well replied to and has been previously discusseed (sic) here.

Evan's response did not address Maggie's question. It's that simple.

[Evan Burton]

Michael,

I did respond. The turn was necessary to lose height, because it is more difficult to make a vertical approach than a more horizontal approach to a target.

Hanjour and others had the necessary skills to guide the aircraft into their targets. Would it help if I asked a 747 captain with training experience, who has stated that he could train someone to fly the approach with nothing more than about 30 mins simulator time, to come here and state that for himself? Would you actually believe him? I think not, but am willing to ask them to do it if required.

How many pilots would it take to convince people that this claim of "could not fly the approach", etc, is wrong?

[Michael Hogan]

Michael,

I did respond. The turn was necessary to lose height, because it is more difficult to make a vertical approach than a more horizontal approach to a target.

Hanjour and others had the necessary skills to guide the aircraft into their targets. Would it help if I asked a 747 captain with training experience, who has stated that he could train someone to fly the approach with nothing more than about 30 mins simulator time, to come here and state that for himself? Would you actually believe him? I think not, but am willing to ask them to do it if required.

How many pilots would it take to convince people that this claim of "could not fly the approach", etc, is wrong?

I did not say you didn't respond. I said you did not answer Maggie's question. I'm probably one of the few that took the time to wade through the link you provided. It did not answer her question.

You have no idea what I would or would not believe about this subject.

[Evan Burton]

Michael,

I'm confused. What question was asked that I didn't respond to? I'll do my best to answer it.

Thanks,

[Evan Burton]

Whilst I am waiting for Michaels response, others might consider the level of knowledge that is required for an FAA Commercial Pilot Licence:

The Aeronautical Knowledge Test (PDF)

The Practical Handling Test (PDF)

They are just the CPL standards. Higher standards apply for an ATPL.

[Maggie Hansen]

Michael,

I did respond. The turn was necessary to lose height, because it is more difficult to make a vertical approach than a more horizontal approach to a target.

Hanjour and others had the necessary skills to guide the aircraft into their targets. Would it help if I asked a 747 captain with training experience, who has stated that he could train someone to fly the approach with nothing more than about 30 mins simulator time, to come here and state that for himself? Would you actually believe him? I think not, but am willing to ask them to do it if required.

How many pilots would it take to convince people that this claim of "could not fly the approach", etc, is wrong?

If you wish Evan but I wouldn't on my account. I have pilots here that I can ask.

What is not understandable to me is why Hanjour needed to turn. I understand what you are saying about descent and turning on approach but why turn why not just descend and approach? The turn is superfluous. Just descend and aim. Much easier.

[Michael Hogan]

Michael,

I'm confused. What question was asked that I didn't respond to? I'll do my best to answer it.

Thanks,

Evan, please save the thanks for Jack White. All you have to do is go back and read Maggie's post and mine.