FBI, the mob, and 9/11

[Craig Lamson]

Here is what the dust cloud looked like when the South Tower collapsed...nothing

at all like the CNN dust cloud.

Jack

Lets revise your statement above to MAKE IT THE TRUTH!

jack sez (revised to correct his error):

Here is what the dust cloud looked like when the South Tower collapsed ( at a point in time later than the CNN clip I posted). Which is why it looks different than frame from CNN that I posted.

[Len Colby]

Here is what the dust cloud looked like when the South Tower collapsed...nothing

at all like the CNN dust cloud.

Jack

Lets revise your statement above to MAKE IT THE TRUTH!

jack sez (revised to correct his error):

Here is what the dust cloud looked like when the South Tower collapsed ( at a point in time later than the CNN clip I posted). Which is why it looks different than frame from CNN that I posted.

Craig

You should have made that "Here is what the dust cloud looked like when the South Tower collapsed (at a point in time later than the CNN clip I posted and shot about 45 degrees futher east, in a much higher resolution image). Which is why it looks different than frame from CNN that I posted.

[Len Colby]

Len,

I dislike trying to download YouTube clips on my home network. If you already have it, could you give me a verbatim transcript of the high speed claim that Keith makes?

Thank you,

Some one on DU quoted him as saying

"[Well, according to the Boeing experts, or the Boeing people themselves - the engineering department -] the plane maxes out, the specs on the plane, the power plant will max out at 700 feet altitude at 330 mph. In other words, it can't fly that fast. And the plane will begin to shake itself apart at about 220 mph at that altitude."

and cited an interview linked below at 15:40 which I haven’t listened to

http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/joseph_keit...1607_planes.mp3

In the video he didn’t say the part in the brackets but the rest is exactly the same. Rather he as Jack paraphrased him said “something to the effect that the thicker air would also have stalled the engines” and acted as a brake. If you want the rest verbatim you have to listen yourself.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=53...OvpGorQqALF7qg5

The plane was a 777=300ER but its max crusing speed and crusing speed are virtualy the same as for the 767=200ER

Jumbo jet pilot sacked for ‘fly-by’ at 28 feet

A British pilot has been dismissed for “buzzing” a control tower in a Top Gun-style stunt during the maiden flight of a Boeing jumbo jet.

Captain Ian Wilkinson astonished passengers by taking the 230-tonne Cathay Pacific jet to within 28ft (8.5m) of the ground shortly after take-off from Boeing’s US manufacturing plant.

The 322mph fly-by was cheered by onlookers, and the pilot, who is said to be one of the most senior aviators with the airline, later toasted the flight with champagne.

[...]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3427696.ece

In an earlier post I included a clip of an TAP Airbus A310-300 which uses the same engines and is very similar in size and specs to the 767-200ER flying low at about 420 MPH

Edited August 6, 2008 by Len Colby

[Jack White]

I have been looking at videos, and here is perhaps the best smoking gun of 911.

The video is of a street scene. A spectator LOOKS UP as a loud explosion is heard.

No jet noise, just an explosion. BUT LOOK AT THE BACKGROUND. It is the corner

of Church and Murray, where an alleged "jet engine" is found later. IT IS ALREADY

ROPED OFF BY POLICE TAPE, before the first explosion!

Other videos show a team of FBI agents "hurrying dust-covered survivors" past the

corner. Apparently a FOX cameraman was stationed there to film the "discovery"

later of the planted engine.

Jack

GRAPHIC REMOVED FOR ALTERATION

Will be reposted when work is completed.

Edited August 8, 2008 by Jack White

[Evan Burton]

How Hard Is It to Fly a 757 or 767?

The AirSafe Journal™

17 September 2001

Vol. 1 No. 16

In the wake of the attacks at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, it is clear that one of the key factors in the success of those attacks is that at least one member of each of the four teams of hijackers was a trained pilot. While there is some question as to the amount of flying expertise possessed these hijackers, there is no indication that any of them had the level of experience or qualifications of an airline pilot. Whatever their level of expertise, it was sufficient to guide three of the four hijacked planes to their targets, causing the deaths of thousands.

Dr. Todd Curtis at the controls of a full motion 757/767 simulator

Many people have wondered how it could be possible for relatively unskilled pilots to do this. This writer is in a unique position to answer that question. I am a licensed pilot of very limited experience, with just under 100 hours in small, single-engine training aircraft such as the Cessna 172. A few years ago, I had the opportunity to take a short course on the 757 that included classroom training, individual computer based training, and about five hours in a full-motion simulator. This high fidelity simulator was the same kind of that airline pilots use in their initial training or to simulate a wide range of emergency procedures.

After about a week of training, I was familiar with the layout of the flight deck and with the operation of the flight controls, autopilot, and navigation systems. As a result, flying the simulator was much less difficult than I had imagined at the beginning of the course. The most difficult part of the simulator training was takeoffs and landings. On the other hand, flying the aircraft in other phases of flight was relatively easy, even compared to flying a Cessna 172. Changing the aircraft's course, speed, or altitude was not very difficult when using either the autopilot system or when flying the aircraft manually. The flight control system made the aircraft rather responsive and made it easy to perform normal flying manuvers.

Given my experiences in the simulator, I feel that if I were to be put into a 757's cockpit in the middle of a flight on a relatively clear and sunny day, I would be able to change direction and altitude without any trouble. Given a basic knowledge of a region's geography and of available navigational aids, I would also be able to navigate well enough that I could find a major city and fly the aircraft to any major landmark in that city. Because the basic cockpit layout and many of the procedures used in the 757 are almost identical to those of the 767, I feel that the same would be true for a 767.

In short, I believe that any person who has earned a private pilot's license and who has access to the same kind of ground school and simulator training that I received could fly a 757 or 767 well enough to hit a large building. Given the wide availability of this kind of training, it would appear that the kind of terrorist actions that took place in New York and Washington could easily be repeated in the future.

http://www.airsafe.com/journal/v1num16.htm

[Maggie Hansen]

This may or may not be right for the WTC planes but most people question the ability of an untrained/unskilled person to fly the plane as it was said to have been flown towards the Pentagon. Also bare in mind that the occasion was one which would have been highly charged emotionally and mentally and that it took place in a real airborne plane not a try out in an easy relaxing simulator.

[Jack White]

Please cite (apologies to Colby) evidence that ANY of the 19 arabs had a week's training

in a 757 or 767 FLIGHT SIMULATOR. They all flunked flying a Piper Cub! I would expect

that to be allowed to try a simulator, some previous qualifications would be necessary.

Citing Dr. Curtis, likely a highly intelligent man, is a non sequitur...comparing HIM to

any of the 19 young muslims.

If any of them had such simulator training, we would have heard all about it by now.

(IF THEY EVEN EXISTED)

Jack

[Matthew Lewis]

All bolding mine

http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-244.html

The three pilots in Florida continued with their training. Atta and Shehhifinished up at Huffman and earned their instrument certificates from the FAA

in November. In mid-December 2000, they passed their commercial pilot tests and received their licenses.They then began training to fly large jets on a flight simulator. At about the same time, Jarrah began simulator training, also in Florida but at a different center. By the end of 2000, less than six months after their arrival, the three pilots on the East Coast were simulating flights on large jets.

http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-243.html

cont here

http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-244.html

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.

some other relevant info

http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2006/0...askthepilot186/

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 xxxxty 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.

Experienced pilot Giulio Bernacchia

http://www.911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf

In my opinion the official version of the fact is absolutely plausible, does not require exceptional circumstances, bending of any law of physics or superhuman capabilities. Like other (real pilots) have said, the manoeuvres required of the hijackers were within their (very limited) capabilities, they were performed without any degree of finesse and resulted in damage to the targets only after desperate overmanoeuvring of the planes. The hijackers took advantage of anything that might make their job easier, and decided not to rely on their low piloting skills. It is misleading to make people believe that the hijackers HAD to possess superior pilot skills to do what they did.

[Len Colby]

Once again the “problem “ is a figment of Jack’s vivid imagination.

1) The Naudet Brothers DIDN’T have a 2nd camera. The still is from a montage at the beginning of the film, interspliced with the lead up to the famous shot of flight 11 hitting1 WTC are clips (roughly in the order of appearance) of tourists taking photos in the lobby, firemen in the lobby before 9/11, the cab of a fire engine racing towards the WTC, a shot of the north tower burning shot from the corner of Church and Vesey, firemen reporting to the WTC after crash and people fleeing one of the collapses, presumably the 1st since I imagine most civilian spectators left the area before the 2nd. By Jack’s logic then the film shows that WTC2 collapsed BEFORE it was hit - a second or two after the WTC1 crash.

Don’t take my word for it see for yourself. The timestamps are weird on this they run backward and start again long before reaching 0. Let the clock restart a second time and start at 8:00.

http://www.livevideo.com/media/playvideo_f...CB21A7F275ED14E

2) The corner doesn’t even appear to be Church and Murray.

A) The engine part was found on the east side of Church St just the north of Murray. The shot was taken from a point on what Jack supposes to be Church St. northwest of where the part landed and the man is looking up and to the right, i.e. to the northeast or about 180 degrees away from the WTC. (see map below)

Below is a rough approximation of the view of Church and Murray from Google Maps Street View from Jack’s supposed location, the buildings don’t match.

3) The belief that the part could have been planted before 8:46 and not noticed when it only should have been there at 9:03 is simply not credible, this is one of the most densely occupied parts of the planet, and there would be no time of day or night one could expect to do this without being noticed. The risk of the part being photographed or videotaped would have been a risk to the entire operation This was rush hour and hundreds if not thousands of people would have passed the corner. It would have been along the route to from home/school/work for many users of the 1, 5, 6, A, C, E, J, M, N, R, W, Z and PATH trains, local and express buses and Hudson River ferries. Does Jack really believe it is possible that none of them would have noticed?

4) The reason why there is no noise from the plane just before the crash is obvious from the original clip. It was shot well to the north of the WTC, the jet could be clearly heard as it passed close by but the sound faded as it flew away from the camera’s location.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7...N3vN4TErwLup_gv

Lack - If that was your "best smoking gun of 911" its time to call it quits!

Edited August 7, 2008 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

This may or may not be right for the WTC planes but most people question the ability of an untrained/unskilled person to fly the plane as it was said to have been flown towards the Pentagon. Also bare in mind that the occasion was one which would have been highly charged emotionally and mentally and that it took place in a real airborne plane not a try out in an easy relaxing simulator.

The author was less qualified than Hanjour, seems to believe he could have hit the Pentagon. Hanjour had a commercial license and about 600 hours. He also took simulator classes and is believed to have trained on his laptop. The only thing he did that might have been difficult was fly the 757 for a short distance low to the ground before crashing. By contrast the pilot of 175 almost missed the south tower

I am a licensed pilot of very limited experience, with just under 100 hours in small, single-engine training aircraft such as the Cessna 172. A few years ago, I had the opportunity to take a short course on the 757 that included classroom training, individual computer based training, and about five hours in a full-motion simulator. This high fidelity simulator was the same kind of that airline pilots use in their initial training or to simulate a wide range of emergency procedures.

The most difficult part of the simulator training was takeoffs and landings. On the other hand, flying the aircraft in other phases of flight was relatively easy, even compared to flying a Cessna 172. Changing the aircraft's course, speed, or altitude was not very difficult when using either the autopilot system or when flying the aircraft manually.

[…]

I would also be able to navigate well enough that I could find a major city and fly the aircraft to any major landmark in that city.

[…]

Given the wide availability of this kind of training, it would appear that the kind of terrorist actions that took place in New York and Washington could easily be repeated in the future.

[Jack White]

Giulio Bernacchia was not listed as one of the hijackers and is indeed alive.

This is a bs non sequitur.

Jack

[Matthew Lewis]

Giulio Bernacchia was not listed as one of the hijackers and is indeed alive.

This is a bs non sequitur.

Jack

Whoever said he was one of the hijackers? He was presented as an expert's opinion. Seriously Jack, do you even read what is presented before you comment?

Edited August 7, 2008 by Matthew Lewis

[Jack White]

I will reply to Len Brazil's non sequiturs later. Gotta go downtown now.

He has never heard of building remodeling or replacement. He shows

the correct corner, but the wrong direction to match the "engine"

shots. That corner has NOT changed.

Jack

[Dave Greer]

I have been looking at videos, and here is perhaps the best smoking gun of 911.

The video is of a street scene. A spectator LOOKS UP as a loud explosion is heard.

No jet noise, just an explosion. BUT LOOK AT THE BACKGROUND. It is the corner

of Church and Murray, where an alleged "jet engine" is found later. IT IS ALREADY

ROPED OFF BY POLICE TAPE, before the first explosion!

Other videos show a team of FBI agents "hurrying dust-covered survivors" past the

corner. Apparently a FOX cameraman was stationed there to film the "discovery"

later of the planted engine.

Jack

Jack

I think you've identified the corner of Church and Murray correctly. Here's the view looking North along Church, which seems to correspond to the photo.

It would be interesting to see a higher resolution version of that snippet, to try and see exactly what is roped off by the yellow tape, and it might even be possible to see the time on the man's watch.

[Len Colby]

Citing Dr. Curtis, likely a highly intelligent man, is a non sequitur...comparing HIM to

any of the 19 young muslims.

Dr. Curtis didn't indicate that he though someone would have to be especially intelligent to hit the targets. Atta was a graduate student at the prestigious Technical University of Hamburg-Harburg, according to his advisor he was “smart” and got a “very very good” grade on his written thesis and the highest possible grade on his oral thesis. Jarrah studied aeronautical engineering at the University of Applied Sciences in Hamburg and “his grades were above average”. I’ve seen no indication the other two pilots were unintelligent. Nor do I see the relevance of their religion. Does Jack believe Muslims are less intelligent than members of other religions?

Atta - http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/atta/interviews/machule.htm

Jarrah - http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/thepilot/story.html