FBI, the mob, and 9/11

[Maggie Hansen]

(To Evan in post #46) Colby initiated the insulting language.

You’re joking right, you don’t consider “You really should stop using words you can't spell” insulting? If you don’t want someone to toss rocks at you don’t throw rocks at them first you constantly insult me and now Evan, you’ve insulted other members (Jack, David Healy, Paul) in the past. Or are going to pretend you were offended by me saying your post was ‘nonsense’? If so how is that offensive but you saying to Evan “you don't have your facts straight” not?

No, not joking. I simply said you initiated the insulting language. You did. Whether or not my replies were insulting to you or I've insulted anyone in the past is irrelevant. My statement was accurate.

I didn't claim to be offended, so don't imply that I am. I was just pointing out that the very word you chose to insult me with you couldn't spell correctly.

See my reply here - http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13272

As far as what I said about Evan, it was understated. He is the most pro-active moderator in this part of the Forum. He was participating in the thread as a member, when he suddenly switched roles to a moderator

and offered an interpretation of the Forum rules that was clearly wrong. He demonstrated an unfamiliarity with the very rules he claims to enforce. He didn't have his facts straight.

Yes but under your "logic" it was “insulting language” .

See my previous posts he was/is insisting Maggies paraphrase of Hanjour’s teacher saying ‘he couldn’tfly at all’ had not been addressed. I think at this point he realizes his error but is too stubborn to admit it which is why he won’t 1) clarify the question for you or 2) respond to my points.

Not even close. Or logical. Or based on what transpired.

I told you I didn't believe you made any points, thus nothing to respond to. Evan could have easily found Maggie's question, yet he chose not to. I was under no obligation to reproduce it for him.

The posting of a long link did not answer Maggie's question, despite everything you wrote. It was you that made the error, failing to understand her question in your haste to answer for Evan.

Rubbish Mike, you simply don’t and still don’t have a reasonable reply but make up excuses rather than acknowledge it. Maggie’s concerns were addressed and you can’t explain why you think otherwise.

My question was not answered adequately. I have just not bothered with it as life is too short.

[Len Colby]

My question was not answered adequately. I have just not bothered with it as life is too short.

I really fail to see what part of your "question was not answered adequately". You 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…

The chief flight instructor of the airport spoke to Newsday:

"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

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

…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?

That wasn’t quite accurate the person who made the statement was identified only as a “former employee” of the flight school not as a teacher let alone Hanjour’s instructor. He or she was paraphrased as saying the school staff “considered him a very bad pilot” the direct quote actually was ''I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon, he could not fly at all.'' The key difference being that he (or she) didn’t indicate he didn’t think Hanjour was the pilot.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...756C0A9649C8B63

Marcel Bernard as previously quoted didn’t think it was beyond his flying abilities, he seemingly was the only one. Margaret Chevrette was the manager at the same flight school as the unnamed former employee. She agreed he was a poor pilot but told the Washington Post (as quoted in a previous post):

“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

There were quotes in the 911 Myths page from other flight instructors whose assessment of Hanjour wasn’t so negative and the opinions of other pilots several of them rated in 757/767’s. It was also pointed out Hanjour had additional instruction after the anonymous flight school employee last saw him fly.

You asked why you should believe Dr. Curtis rather than Hanjour’s ex-teacher. To make a long story short 1) he wasn't one of Hanjour’s teachers, 2) he did not say what you thought he did 3) Hanjour had additional instruction before 9/11,4) other assessments weren’t so negative and 5) experienced pilots said what he did wasn’t as difficult as others make out.

Why believe Dr. Curtiss? Do you think he might have been lying? He had less training and experience than Hanjour and didn’t think it would have been that hard for the hijack pilots to do what they did, the evidence indicating they would not have been able to is very weak.

I think CT’s make too much of the rental issue. Planes are of course very expensive a 2005 - 8 Cessna 172 would set you back $169,000 - $283,500 one made in the 80’s $43,000 - $80,000, if someone crashed they could potentially kill people or damage property on the ground, under American tort law I imagine even surviving passengers or their next of kin could sue the owner who rented out the plane. The potential costs of a poor pilot screwing up are quite high. Even if they had insurance, there would deductibles to pay, increased premiums, lost income and perhaps negative publicity. Even if he didn't crash a hard landing could damage the plane. The airport rents the C172 for $ 126/hour. So do the math, lets say Hanjour wanted to rent the plane for two hours which would net you $ 252 minus maintenance costs even if you though was a 1 in 20 or 1 in 100 chance he would crash, would you rent to him?

C172 prices http://www.aircraftdealer.com/view_ads.php...mp;advanced=yes

Midway Airport rental prices

http://www.freewayaviation.com/aircraft-rental.html

EDIT - LINK ADDED

Edited August 10, 2008 by Len Colby

[Michael Hogan]

My question was not answered adequately. I have just not bothered with it as life is too short.

As Maggie realizes, a simple question is not answered by posting a link to a website that takes a considerable amount of time to read, let alone the time required to check all the links referenced, particularly when

much of the information is not germane to the question that was asked in the first place. Life is too short.

If Maggie's question was answered, it would not be necessary to write a bad term paper on why it was.

[Dawn Meredith]

My question was not answered adequately. I have just not bothered with it as life is too short.

As Maggie realizes, a simple question is not answered by posting a link to a website that takes a considerable amount of time to read, let alone the time required to check all the links referenced, particularly when

much of the information is not germane to the question that was asked in the first place. Life is too short.

If Maggie's question was answered, it would not be necessary to write a bad term paper on why it was.

Because his sole purpose here is to derail the thread from any meaningful discussion to bs.

Irrelevent links, websites that no-one is interested in, divert, divert, divert.

In fact I am surprised Maggie and Michael are even still posting.

Soon ...."they"....-whoever they really are- will have their playpen to themselves.

[Evan Burton]

But Michael - and now Maggie - say that I didn't adequately answer the question. I asked why, or in what respect. Neither Michael nor Maggie seems to have told me. I thought Len covered it pretty well.

If someone - anyone - would like to tell me what more they'd like to know, I'll do my best to answer. As I have said repeatedly.

[Maggie Hansen]

But Michael - and now Maggie - say that I didn't adequately answer the question. I asked why, or in what respect. Neither Michael nor Maggie seems to have told me. I thought Len covered it pretty well.

If someone - anyone - would like to tell me what more they'd like to know, I'll do my best to answer. As I have said repeatedly.

Okay Evan.

Why did the Hanjour plane do the turn? I understand that planes in normal circumstances need to make approaches to certain runways and will also depend on weather conditions like wind also.

In the case of Hanjour it is not a normal situation. It is a disposable plane landing on a vertical runway with out traffic control in pretty perfect weather. He doesn't need any one else's permission for anything he can do what he likes. He is apparently in control of the plane since at least 9.24 am when the FAA knew for sure that his flight was missing and by some accounts notified the NORAD At 9.29 am he is flying at 7,000 feet and is about 38 miles west of the Pentagon. He can drop altitude any time from here and just cruise in to the side of the Pentagon or in the middle or where ever he wants to park it. Point and aim. No need for any tricky maneuvers. He does not have to stay high and then drop 1 mile out (or what ever it was) and do the turn to get down. He was heading towards the pentagon anyway he just needed to adjust a few degrees and drop down along the way. Impact at 9.37am. Eight minutes is plenty of time to descend.

Edited August 11, 2008 by Maggie Hansen

[Michael Hogan]

But Michael - and now Maggie - say that I didn't adequately answer the question. I asked why, or in what respect. Neither Michael nor Maggie seems to have told me. I thought Len covered it pretty well.

If someone - anyone - would like to tell me what more they'd like to know, I'll do my best to answer. As I have said repeatedly.

Of course you thought Colby covered it very well. Apparently he had no trouble in finding Maggie's question. Why was it so difficult for you to do the same?

When I suggested all you had to do was go back and look for her post and mine, Colby called my comment "nonesense." Even though he was able to do exactly what I suggested you do.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;#entry151662

I do have more that I want to say about this thread, but not at this moment.

Do you maintain that you adequately answered Maggie's question in your initial response to her?

[Matthew Lewis]

My understanding of the turn. The only one that knows for sure why he did the turn to descend is dead now. He dies when he crashed the plane. But I have seen experts speculate that he may have been too high when he aquired his "target". If he had been following the navigational beacon near the airport near the Pentagon, he may not have known exactly how far away he was until he visually saw the Pentagon. Yes, normally one could descend sooner but that depends on knowing exactly where one is.

[Len Colby]

My question was not answered adequately. I have just not bothered with it as life is too short.

As Maggie realizes, a simple question is not answered by posting a link to a website that takes a considerable amount of time to read, let alone the time required to check all the links referenced, particularly when

much of the information is not germane to the question that was asked in the first place. Life is too short.

If Maggie's question was answered, it would not be necessary to write a bad term paper on why it was.

Because his sole purpose here is to derail the thread from any meaningful discussion to bs.

Irrelevent links, websites that no-one is interested in, divert, divert, divert.

In fact I am surprised Maggie and Michael are even still posting.

Soon ...."they"....-whoever they really are- will have their playpen to themselves.

Perhaps if certain members as promised will cease posting here it will cease to be a "playpen" and become a place where reasonable people with differing views can maturely discuss these kinds of issues.

[Len Colby]

But Michael - and now Maggie - say that I didn't adequately answer the question. I asked why, or in what respect. Neither Michael nor Maggie seems to have told me. I thought Len covered it pretty well.

If someone - anyone - would like to tell me what more they'd like to know, I'll do my best to answer. As I have said repeatedly.

Okay Evan.

Why did the Hanjour plane do the turn? I understand that planes in normal circumstances need to make approaches to certain runways and will also depend on weather conditions like wind also.

In the case of Hanjour it is not a normal situation. It is a disposable plane landing on a vertical runway with out traffic control in pretty perfect weather. He doesn't need any one else's permission for anything he can do what he likes. He is apparently in control of the plane since at least 9.24 am when the FAA knew for sure that his flight was missing and by some accounts notified the NORAD At 9.29 am he is flying at 7,000 feet and is about 38 miles west of the Pentagon. He can drop altitude any time from here and just cruise in to the side of the Pentagon or in the middle or where ever he wants to park it. Point and aim. No need for any tricky maneuvers. He does not have to stay high and then drop 1 mile out (or what ever it was) and do the turn to get down. He was heading towards the pentagon anyway he just needed to adjust a few degrees and drop down along the way. Impact at 9.37am. Eight minutes is plenty of time to descend.

The reason for the turn as I understand it and Evan tried to explain is that Hanjour who was not a good pilot was too high up to hit his target. Making a steep dive from that altitude and hitting the Pentagon would have almost certainly been beyond his abilities. Making a long turn gave him greater distance to loose altitude. This is roughly analogous to mountain roads and trails zigzagging along a steep slope rather than going straight up/down it. As to why he didn’t descend earlier as Matthew pointed out the only person who can answer that is dead. More experienced pilots have made similar errors. For example the pilots of Wellstone’s plane where too high and too fast in there initial approach and this was while they were still in radio contact, not even Fetzer (AFAIK) has disputed this.

Speaking of unanswered questions, I previously asked you why the plane made the turn if it was being flown remotely by the plotters? The easiest thing in that case would have been to have it fly straight. Whoever was flying made the turn it seems because they screwed up. Who was more likely to have done so, Hanjour who by all accounts was a poor pilot or the plotters who had years to plan there elaborate almost perfect scheme?

[Len Colby]

My question was not answered adequately. I have just not bothered with it as life is too short.

As Maggie realizes, a simple question is not answered by posting a link to a website that takes a considerable amount of time to read, let alone the time required to check all the links referenced, particularly when

much of the information is not germane to the question that was asked in the first place. Life is too short.

If Maggie's question was answered, it would not be necessary to write a bad term paper on why it was.

You are conflating intransigence with reasonable doubt. This is analogous to when Jack continuously insisted that evolution was an obvious hoax though he was unable to give any reasons for this belief other than a misunderstanding of the science involved. Just as his stubborn refusal to accept the facts and some members patience in trying to set him straight in no way indicated his doubts were legitimate, you (and to a lesser extent Maggie) saying her question was not satisfactorily answered doesn’t make it so.

[Michael Hogan]

My question was not answered adequately. I have just not bothered with it as life is too short.

As Maggie realizes, a simple question is not answered by posting a link to a website that takes a considerable amount of time to read, let alone the time required to check all the links referenced, particularly when

much of the information is not germane to the question that was asked in the first place. Life is too short.

If Maggie's question was answered, it would not be necessary to write a bad term paper on why it was.

You are conflating intransigence with reasonable doubt. This is analogous to when Jack continuously insisted that evolution was an obvious hoax though he was unable to give any reasons for this belief other than a misunderstanding of the science involved. Just as his stubborn refusal to accept the facts and some members patience in trying to set him straight in no way indicated his doubts were legitimate, you (and to a lesser extent Maggie) saying her question was not satisfactorily answered doesn’t make it so.

There is no analogy of course. An entirely different matter with entirely different circumstances. Lightweight stuff from you as usual.

[Len Colby]

Your reply is one of someone who has nothing to add to the discussion. If and when you can state what doubts (if any) remain about Hanjour’s ability to have flown the 757 into the Pentagon get back to us.

[Maggie Hansen]

My understanding of the turn. The only one that knows for sure why he did the turn to descend is dead now. He dies when he crashed the plane. But I have seen experts speculate that he may have been too high when he aquired his "target". If he had been following the navigational beacon near the airport near the Pentagon, he may not have known exactly how far away he was until he visually saw the Pentagon. Yes, normally one could descend sooner but that depends on knowing exactly where one is.

Thank you Matthew for you answer. That is much like I thought.

[Maggie Hansen]

Your reply is one of someone who has nothing to add to the discussion. If and when you can state what doubts (if any) remain about Hanjour’s ability to have flown the 757 into the Pentagon get back to us.

Len,

Michael has contributed constructively to this discussion. I find your response to be rude and a personal attack on a member.