portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts global

9.11 investigation | imperialism & war

The 9/11 Hijackers: Amateur Aviators Who Became Super-Pilots On September 11

"To hit something with an airplane is easy only if
you have been flying for 20 years."
- Boeing 767 pilot quoted in the Boston Globe

"The conspiracy apparently did not include
a surplus of skilled pilots."
- The Washington Post

In the days after 9/11, numerous pilots and aviation experts commented on the elaborate maneuvers performed by the aircraft in the terrorist attacks, and the advanced skills that would have been necessary to navigate those aircraft into their targets. The men flying the planes must have been "highly skilled pilots" and "extremely knowledgeable and capable aviators," who were "probably military trained," these experts said.

And yet the four alleged hijackers who were supposedly flying the aircraft were amateur pilots, who had learned to fly in small propeller planes, and were described by their instructors as having had only "average" or even "very poor" piloting skills. But on their first attempt at flying jet aircraft, on September 11, 2001, these men were supposedly able to fly Boeing 757s and 767s at altitudes of tens of thousands of feet, without any assistance from air traffic control. Three of them were apparently able to successfully navigate their planes all the way to the intended targets, which they hit with pinpoint accuracy.

For such poor pilots to carry out such skilled flying would surely have been extremely unlikely, perhaps impossible. And yet this is what is claimed in the official account of 9/11.
 http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2011/07/911-hijackers-amateur-aviators-who.html

Posted by Shoestring at 12:37

Monday, 11 July 2011

The 9/11 Hijackers: Amateur Aviators Who Became Super-Pilots on September 11

"To hit something with an airplane is easy only if
you have been flying for 20 years."
- Boeing 767 pilot quoted in the Boston Globe

"The conspiracy apparently did not include
a surplus of skilled pilots."
- The Washington Post

In the days after 9/11, numerous pilots and aviation experts commented on the elaborate maneuvers performed by the aircraft in the terrorist attacks, and the advanced skills that would have been necessary to navigate those aircraft into their targets. The men flying the planes must have been "highly skilled pilots" and "extremely knowledgeable and capable aviators," who were "probably military trained," these experts said.

And yet the four alleged hijackers who were supposedly flying the aircraft were amateur pilots, who had learned to fly in small propeller planes, and were described by their instructors as having had only "average" or even "very poor" piloting skills. But on their first attempt at flying jet aircraft, on September 11, 2001, these men were supposedly able to fly Boeing 757s and 767s at altitudes of tens of thousands of feet, without any assistance from air traffic control. Three of them were apparently able to successfully navigate their planes all the way to the intended targets, which they hit with pinpoint accuracy.

For such poor pilots to carry out such skilled flying would surely have been extremely unlikely, perhaps impossible. And yet this is what is claimed in the official account of 9/11.

EXPERTS SAID HIJACKERS 'MUST HAVE BEEN EXPERIENCED PILOTS'
Numerous experts commented that the hijackers who flew the aircraft in the 9/11 attacks must have been highly trained and skillful pilots. Tony Ferrante, the head of the Federal Aviation Administration's investigations division, spent several days after 9/11 carefully piecing together the movements of the four aircraft targeted in the attacks. According to author Pamela Freni, Ferrante's "hair stood on end when he realized the precision with which all four airplanes had moved toward their targets." Ferrante said, "It was almost as though it was choreographed," and explained, "It's not as easy as it looks to do what [the hijackers] did at 500 miles an hour." [1]

Darryl Jenkins, the director of the Aviation Institute at George Washington University, told the New York Times that the men who carried out the attacks "knew what they were doing down to very small details." He said, "Every one of them was trained in flying big planes." The Times reported that a "number of aviation experts agreed" with Jenkins and had said that "the hijackers must have been experienced pilots." John Nance, an airline pilot, author, and aviation analyst, said that "the direct hits on the two towers and on the Pentagon suggested to him that the pilots were experienced fliers." Nance pointed to the "smooth banking of the second plane to strike the towers," and said that "precisely controlling a large jet near the ground, necessary for the Pentagon attack, also required advanced skill." Nance concluded, "There's no way an amateur could have, with any degree of reliability, done what was done" in the 9/11 attacks. [2]

A pilot who had been with a major carrier for more than 30 years told CNN that to "pull off the coordinated aerial attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon ... the hijackers must have been extremely knowledgeable and capable aviators." The pilot added, "They know what they were doing." [3]

Robin Lloyd, a Boeing 737 captain with a British airline, told The Telegraph that "the hijackers had to be experienced pilots with more than just a rudimentary knowledge of navigation." Lloyd, who co-runs the Professional Pilots' Rumour Network website, which is "regarded worldwide as one of the prime sources of accurate information for the aviation industry," said the terrorists at the controls of the hijacked aircraft "had to be 100 percent switched on people, 100 percent experienced pilots, probably military trained." He said someone like Osama bin Laden "wouldn't have access to pilots of the caliber needed to pull it off." [4]

John Roden, the president of Aviation Advisory Service, an Oakland, California, consulting firm, said the piloting necessary to navigate the planes to their targets "was very skillful. This is practically fighter pilot technique." [5] And a U.S. Air Force officer who flew over 100 sorties during the Vietnam War concluded that the hijacked aircraft "either had a crack fighter pilot in the left seat or they were being maneuvered by remote control." [6]

'CONSIDERABLE TRAINING' AND 'IN-DEPTH KNOWLEDGE' NEEDED TO FLY 757 AND 767 AIRCRAFT
Two of the aircraft targeted in the 9/11 attacks were Boeing 757s and the other two were Boeing 767s. Experts have commented how difficult it would have been for amateur pilots, like the alleged hijackers, to fly such aircraft.

Aviation experts told the Chicago Tribune, "Unlike a small private plane where pilots generally fly visually, a commercial plane like those hijacked [on September 11] requires a vast command of navigation techniques as well as in-depth knowledge of their myriad systems, from hydraulics to the autopilot." [7] Michael Barr, the director of aviation safety programs at the University of Southern California, and several commercial airline pilots told the Boston Globe that "they assumed that the terrorists were skilled pilots who had to have received some training in flying transport jets, particularly the Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft." [8]

Steven Wallach, an aviation consultant and former airline captain, said that if the hijackers "took the controls at high altitude and a long distance from their targets"--as allegedly happened--"then they likely had considerable training in a 767 or 757." Wallach said the hijackers "would have had to descend and navigate to Washington and New York. They would have had to know how to operate the autopilot, as well as other intricate functions." Boeing 767s and 757s have highly sophisticated "glass cockpits" that include video screens and digital readouts, which require the pilots to have an advanced level of computer skills. "To navigate with that glass cockpit, it can be pretty tricky," Wallach said. [9]

HITTING THE WTC LIKE 'THREADING THE EYE OF A NEEDLE'
Some experts commented specifically on the flying skills that would have been necessary to crash planes into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center.

Kieran Daly, the editor of the Internet publication Air Transport Intelligence, said, "Flying an aircraft into a building is not as simple as it appears." He said the hijackers "would have needed some experience to have been able to steer the planes into the World Trade Centre." [10] Robin Lloyd compared the targets of the WTC towers to "narrow runways tipped vertically." From "switching off the autopilot," the hijackers "would have to know how to control the aircraft and be able to find the target," he said. Lloyd said that "rag-trousered terrorists with no flying experience could not have hit" the Twin Towers. [11]

Michael Barr said the hijackers who flew the planes into the WTC "had to change course ... had to know how to navigate." [12] Barr, who is a former Air Force fighter-bomber pilot, said the hijacker pilots "almost had to hit the towers like they were threading the eye of a needle." He commented on the difficulty the pilots would have had in synchronizing their attacks so they hit the two WTC towers about 15 minutes apart, saying: "The routes they were flying were very different--one plane coming from the north and the other coming from the south. That adds greatly to the complexity and it requires a degree of skill to prevent the planes from banking too much or descending too fast while keeping on course." Barr added that the piloting skills apparently exhibited by the hijackers indicated that "months and months of planning and training were involved." He concluded, "Unfortunately, these guys were good." [13]

A 767 pilot told the Boston Globe: "The perpetrators were trained pilots and trained to operate the 757-767 family of aircraft. ... [I]t did not seem to bother them that the flying was very demanding." This pilot noted that video showed that the second aircraft to hit the WTC was banked, or turning, as it struck the tower, "making the maneuver more difficult." He added, "To hit something with an airplane is easy only if you have been flying for 20 years." [14]

Niki Lauda, the former Formula One world champion who is also a pilot and owned his own airline, said on German TV that whoever flew the aircraft into the WTC must have been "properly trained to fly a plane like that." He said: "You have to know exactly what the turning radius of a plane like that is, if I am trying to hit the World Trade Center. That means, these had to be fully trained 767 or 757 pilots. ... It certainly could not be the case that some half-trained pilot tries it somehow, because then he will not hit it." [15]

AIRCRAFT THAT HIT THE PENTAGON 'WAS FLOWN WITH EXTRAORDINARY SKILL'
A particularly high level of skill would have been needed to fly an aircraft into the west wall of the Pentagon. CBS News reported: "Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two and a half minutes. ... [T]he complex maneuver suggests the hijackers had better flying skills than many investigators first believed." [16] A "top aviation source" called the maneuver "a nice, coordinated turn," which, according to one law enforcement official, was the work of "a great talent ... virtually a textbook turn and landing." [17] Other "aviation sources" told the Washington Post that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon "was flown with extraordinary skill." [18]

According to the Chicago Tribune, authorities said the terrorist who flew American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon displayed "proficiency in the aircraft's advanced navigation and automated flight systems. ... Such systems require pilots to program the desired course heading and altitude into an onboard computer, and the plane carries out the instructions." [19]

Dave Esser, the head of the aeronautical engineering department at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach, Florida, told CNN that "the highest level of navigational ability would have been needed" with Flight 77. Roger Richie, a spokesman for Flight Safety Academy, a flight school in Vero Beach, Florida, added: "It's not that simple when you're heading over [Ohio], to come back and find the Pentagon. You need to know what you are doing." [20]

Ed Soliday, a highly qualified and experienced former airline captain, told the 9/11 Commission that he had been talking about piloting skills with a military officer at the Pentagon, and had remarked to the officer "how tough it would be for any pilot, including himself, to hit the Pentagon directly." Soliday said the "feel" to hit the Pentagon by flying a 757 manually would not have been easy, particularly because of the building's low profile, and would have required the pilot who undertook the task to have had significant "simulator time." Soliday told the Commission that "if he were going to do the Pentagon, he would try to do it all on the autopilot because of how difficult it was." [21] However, the autopilot on Flight 77 was disengaged at 9:29 a.m. and remained off for the final eight minutes the plane was in the air, according to a study of information from the plane's flight data recorder by the National Transportation Safety Board. [22]

The 767 pilot who talked to the Boston Globe similarly said hitting the Pentagon would have been "extremely difficult." He added, "One degree off and [the pilot] either overshoots it or undershoots it." [23] Gary Eitel, an experienced military pilot, said that "the maneuver performed by Flight 77, as described in official reports, was beyond the capabilities of 90 percent of even the best and most experienced pilots in the world." Eitel said that "he was amazed by the piloting skill used to steer Flight 175 into the second tower. Flight 77 boggled his mind." [24]

Niki Lauda said that "to fly downwards out of a curve and still hit the building in its core, I would have to be the best trained [pilot] of all." He speculated that "a normal airline pilot would have a hard time with that, because you are simply not prepared for things like that." Therefore, Lauda concluded, "They must have had some super-training to have been able to handle an airliner so precisely." [25]

While these experts indicated an extraordinary level of piloting skills would have been necessary to carry out the 9/11 attacks, the four men supposedly at the controls of the hijacked aircraft were in fact notable for their lack of such skills and for their limited flying experience.

FLIGHT 11 AND FLIGHT 175 PILOTS HAD 'AVERAGE' SKILLS
Mohamed Atta and Marwan Alshehhi, allegedly the terrorists who flew American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175 into the World Trade Center, were at best mediocre pilots, according to several accounts. They learned to fly between July and December 2000 at a flight school in Venice, Florida. They were enrolled in the school's Accelerated Pilot Program and trained in a Cessna 172, a small single-engine propeller plane. In mid-December 2000, the two men passed their commercial pilot tests and received their licenses. [26] Rudi Dekkers, the owner of the flight school, said he had "heard from the instructors" that Atta and Alshehhi "were average students," and "the examiner told me the same." [27]

The closest Atta and Alshehhi came to flying a jet aircraft before September 11 was the two days they spent at the SimCenter flight school in Opa-Locka, Florida, in late- December 2000, where they had six hours of training in a Boeing 727 simulator. Henry George, the owner of the SimCenter who trained Atta and Alshehhi in the simulator, said the two men were provided with "a mini, mini introduction" to jet flight. George found their flying skills to be unremarkable. He later recalled: "Looking back, they were average pilots for their experience level. Nothing particularly bad about their flying, but nothing remarkable either." [28]

FLIGHT 77 PILOT WAS 'TOTALLY CLUELESS' AND 'COULD NOT FLY AT ALL'
Of the four men supposedly at the controls of the hijacked aircraft on September 11, Hani Hanjour stood out for his particularly weak flying skills. This 29-year-old from Saudi Arabia is alleged to have flown Flight 77 into the Pentagon. That, as we have seen, would have been a particularly difficult task, even for the best pilots. Hanjour, however, was a hopeless pilot.

An Arizona flight school Hanjour attended in 1996 found the young Saudi to be a "weak student" who "was wasting our resources," according to the school's owner. [29] An instructor at another Arizona flight school who taught Hanjour for four months in 1998 later stated: "As a pilot, Hani Hanjour was very poor. His knowledge of the academic side of training was weak, his flying skills were marginal, but most significantly his judgment was very poor." The instructor recalled that Hanjour "was not well educated nor was he very intelligent." Hanjour had "a poor understanding of the basic principles of aviation" and "poor technical skills." [30]

Instructors at a flight school that Hanjour attended early in 2001 "found his piloting skills so shoddy and his grasp of English so inadequate that they questioned whether his pilot's license was genuine," according to the New York Times. The staff at the school "feared that his skills were so weak that he could pose a safety hazard if he flew a commercial airliner." [31] An instructor at the school who trained Hanjour in a Boeing 737 simulator while he was there said Hanjour "proved to be such a bad pilot," and described Hanjour as "totally clueless." [32] One of the school's employees later said of Hanjour: "I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all." [33]

As the day of the attacks came closer, Hanjour's skills remained weak. An instructor at a Maryland flight school who provided flight lessons to Hanjour in mid-August 2001--less than a month before 9/11--found Hanjour to be "a poor student" who had "particular difficulty landing the aircraft." [34] After he was taken on three test flights at the school, Hanjour's request to rent a plane there was refused without more training. [35]

The Washington Post concluded that Hanjour's "limited flying abilities do afford an insight into one feature of the attacks: The conspiracy apparently did not include a surplus of skilled pilots." [36]

FLIGHT 93 PILOT'S SKILLS WERE 'A LITTLE BIT OUT THERE'
The terrorist allegedly at the controls of United Airlines Flight 93, which reportedly crashed in Pennsylvania after its passengers fought back against their plane's hijackers, was Ziad Jarrah, a 26-year-old from the Lebanon. While he was a better pilot than Hani Hanjour, Jarrah still appears to have had only mediocre flying skills.

Jarrah learned to fly during the latter half of 2000, spending about six months at a flight school in Florida where he trained in a Cessna 152, a small, two-seat propeller plane. [37] Jarrah became an "average" pilot, according to Arne Kruithof, the owner of the flight school. Kruithof said of Jarrah: "We had to do more to get him ready than others. His flight skills seemed to be a little bit out there." [38]

In June 2001, only three months before 9/11, Jarrah had two sessions of training at a flight school in Philadelphia, but his request to rent a plane from the school was denied due to his poor flying skills. Herbert Hortman, the owner of the flight school, told the 9/11 Commission he was surprised that Jarrah had qualified for his pilot's license, considering his limited flying ability. Hortman "speculated that a less than reputable flight school had issued the license." [39]

Despite his mediocre skills, Jarrah intended to crash Flight 93 into the White House or the U.S. Capitol building until he was stopped in his tracks by the plane's courageous passengers, according to the official account of 9/11. [40]

DID THE HIJACKERS JUST HAVE BEGINNER'S LUCK?
We can see that the four men who were allegedly at the controls of the aircraft targeted in the 9/11 attacks had poor or mediocre skills and limited flying experience. So how could these amateur pilots, who had trained in small propeller planes, suddenly exhibit extraordinary proficiency in their first attempts at flying large jet aircraft? Was this the greatest example of beginner's luck in all history? Or is the official explanation of the 9/11 attacks wrong? A new investigation of those attacks is urgently required to address this question and find out the truth of what happened on September 11, 2001.

NOTES
[1] Pamela Freni, Ground Stop: An Inside Look at the Federal Aviation Administration on September 11, 2001. Lincoln, NE: iUniverse, Inc., 2003, p. 76; "Memorandum for the Record: Interview With Tony Ferrante." 9/11 Commission, April 19, 2004.
[2] James Glanz, "Terrorists Were Well Trained, but not Necessarily in Flying." New York Times, September 13, 2001.
[3] "Hijackers 'Knew What They Were Doing.'" CNN, September 12, 2001.
[4] Nicole Martin and Andrew Hibberd, "Hijackers May Have Murdered the Pilots." The Telegraph, September 12, 2001.
[5] Henry K. Lee, "Experts Assess How Skilled Hijackers Were." San Francisco Chronicle, September 13, 2001.
[6] "September 11: U.S. Government Accused." Portugal News, August 3, 2002.
[7] Jon Hilkevitch, "Hijackers Flew Skillfully to Targets, Experts Say." Chicago Tribune, September 13, 2001.
[8] Matthew Brelis, "Pilots Say Crews Likely Overpowered, Slain." Boston Globe, September 12, 2001.
[9] Ken Kaye, "Questions Remain on Flight Training." South Florida Sun-Sentinel, September 22, 2001.
[10] Nicole Martin, "Pilots 'Must Have Been Murdered' Before Jets Were Aimed at Buildings." Irish Independent, September 12, 2001.
[11] Nicole Martin and Andrew Hibberd, "Hijackers May Have Murdered the Pilots."
[12] Matthew Brelis, "Pilots Say Crews Likely Overpowered, Slain."
[13] Jon Hilkevitch, "Hijackers Flew Skillfully to Targets, Experts Say."
[14] Matthew Brelis, "Pilots Say Crews Likely Overpowered, Slain."
[15] Webster Griffin Tarpley, 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA. Joshua Tree, CA: Progressive Press, 2005, p. 190.
[16] "Primary Target." CBS News, September 21, 2001.
[17] Amy Goldstein, "Hijackers Led by Core Group." Washington Post, September 30, 2001; Steve Fainaru and Alia Ibrahim, "Mysterious Trip to Flight 77 Cockpit." Washington Post, September 10, 2002.
[18] Marc Fisher and Don Phillips, "On Flight 77: 'Our Plane is Being Hijacked.'" Washington Post, September 12, 2001.
[19] Jon Hilkevitch, "Hijackers Flew Skillfully to Targets, Experts Say."
[20] "Experts Say Hijackers Needed Special Skills." CNN, September 14, 2001.
[21] "Memorandum for the Record: Interview With Captain Ed Soliday, Former Vice President of Safety, Security, and Quality Assurance for United Airlines." 9/11 Commission, November 21, 2003.
[22] John O'Callaghan and Daniel Bower, "Study of Autopilot, Navigation Equipment, and Fuel Consumption Activity Based on United Airlines Flight 93 and American Airlines Flight 77 Digital Flight Data Recorder Information." National Transportation Safety Board, February 13, 2002.
[23] Matthew Brelis, "Pilots Say Crews Likely Overpowered, Slain."
[24] Michael C. Ruppert, Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers, 2004, p. 350.
[25] Webster Griffin Tarpley, 9/11 Synthetic Terror, p. 191.
[26] House Committee on the Judiciary, INS's March 2002 Notification of Approval of Change of Status for Pilot Training for Terrorist Hijackers Mohammed Atta and Marwan Alshehhi. 107th Cong., 2nd Sess., March 19, 2002; 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2004, pp. 224, 227.
[27] Rudi Dekkers, interview by Quentin McDermott, A Mission to Die For. Australian Broadcasting Corporation, October 21, 2001.
[28] David Firestone and Dana Canedy, "FBI Documents Detail the Movements of 19 Men Believed to be Hijackers." New York Times, September 15, 2001; David A. Lombardo, "Hijack Pilots Showed Average Skills, Say Their Instructors." Aviation International News, November 2001.
[29] Amy Goldstein, Lena H. Sun, and George Lardner Jr., "Hanjour a Study in Paradox." Washington Post, October 15, 2001.
[30] Statement of [Name Redacted]. Canfield, Shapiro, Baer, Heller & Johnston, LLP, May 1, 2002.
[31] Jim Yardley, "A Trainee Noted for Incompetence." New York Times, May 4, 2002.
[32] [Name Redacted], interview by the FBI. Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 17, 2001.
[33] Jim Yardley, "A Trainee Noted for Incompetence."
[34] "Memorandum for the Record: Interview of Benjamin L. Connor." 9/11 Commission, April 12, 2004.
[35] Justin Paprocki, "Airport Owners Panic Over Plummeting Profits." Capital News Service, September 19, 2001; Thomas Frank, "Tracing Trail of Hijackers." Newsday, September 23, 2001.
[36] Amy Goldstein, Lena H. Sun, and George Lardner Jr., "Hanjour a Study in Paradox."
[37] Der Spiegel Magazine, Inside 9/11: What Really Happened. New York: St. Martin's Press, 2002, p. 12; "Statement for the Record, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III, Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry." U.S. Congress, September 25, 2002.
[38] Jere Longman, Among the Heroes: United Flight 93 and the Passengers and Crew Who Fought Back. New York: HarperCollins, 2002, p. 91.
[39] "Profile: Ziad Samir Jarrah, DOB: May 11, 1975." Federal Bureau of Investigation, March 20, 2002; "Memorandum for the Record: Interview of Herbert Hortman, Owner of Hortman Aviation, Philadelphia, PA." 9/11 Commission, April 27, 2004.
[40] 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 14.

homepage: homepage: http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2011/07/911-hijackers-amateur-aviators-who.html
address: address: Shoestring 9/11


perhaps a bit of confusion? 24.Jul.2015 04:53

Mike Novack

When we say "able to fly a plane" we mean being able to take off and more importantly, land the plane. Those are the parts of flying which call for critical skills, and just a little small plane experience not enough to handle a large multi-engine aircraft. But just to fly it? Only gradual changes of altitude and direction? No violent maneuvers? That's another matter entirely.

To fly and navigate at the same time another skill set. But who said that the hijack pilot was also navigating? That could be a different one of them.*

To navigate (or to fly) by instruments again another skill set. But conditions that day fine for VFR flying. Quite likely that had the day been socked in the attack would have been postponed. Hey, maybe it was once or twice, and with the original plan we would be marking some earlier date in September.

We also don't know if that little bit of real time small plane experience was ALL they had. There are "simulator" programs out there. Quite possible the small plane experience was just to give the preparing pilot a bit of the real thing.

* Sorry, but this is a perfect example of wrong headed arguing by conspiracy buffs. Declare a situation to exist and argue why that was improbable forgetting that there was no good reason to suppose that situation existed in the first place.

moronic article 24.Jul.2015 09:48

anon

The pilots took extensive 757 simulator training in an accredited flight school. The student/terrorists spent most of their time learning to control flight and pushed back against instructor suggestions they should concentrate on takeoff and landing skills. This is why the flight school reported this to the FBI as suspicious.

It was a clear day and they flew visual with pre-determined compass bearings and visual landmarks to their targets. How hard would it be to miss the tallest buildings in NYC?

Duh. Get your facts straight before going into fantasy land.

Moronic ^ comments by two non-pilots 24.Jul.2015 18:04


RE: Mike Novack -

Absolutely NOTHING you wrote in the ^above rambling comment, has anything whatsoever to do with -

1) The posted article / its contents
2) Dynamics and flight characteristics of airliner piloting which occurred on 9/11 i.e., precision guidance at 400+ mph of full sized jet airliners into large urban building targets.



RE: "anon" -
(LOL, yeah now __this__ guy's a pilot for sure....)

1) "extensive 757 simulator training in an accredited flight school"
See the (purported) pilots' actual flying records and skills discussed above in ....
But no, of course not. You not only didn't _read_ the originally posted article, but your entire reason for being here is to disinform, distract.

2) "student/terrorists spent most of their time learning to control flight and [didn't] concentrate on takeoff and landing skills."
More grasping at straws by the Official Conspiracy Theorists. This (supposedly) is why the FBI found them "suspicious"?? Weren't there enough _other_ reasons (yes indeed) for the "FBI to find them suspicious"?
Can't get more pathetic or nonsensical than that.

3) "was a clear day and they flew visual with pre-determined compass bearings and visual landmarks to their targets. How hard would it be to miss the tallest buildings in NYC?"
Evidently (again) AMERICUUH — READING IS FOR *****TS.
(And no as mentioned above we do understand 100% that you are not an "anonymous innocent helpful user" making comments here on PDX IMC)

"pre-determined compass bearings", LOL!! Do you even comprehend what you type? ROFL

The main problem with the purported 9/11 hijackers'/pilots' skill sets, was their demonstrated ability in the terminal phase.

(as explained ^ above) Precision guidance at 400+ mph of full sized jet airliners into large urban building targets.
(not — as you 100% unsuccessfully and pathetically impute — "a clear day with pre-determined compass bearings and visual landmarks" (LOL! ROFL!!) ..... no the main problem with "hijackers'" piloting skills on 9/11 is not, in fact, the bare ability to maintain straight-and-level flight attitude, use visual landmarks to navigate "on a clear day" towards parts of a city, etc.

Anyway (obviously) if you didn't read the originally posted article, and furthermore have absolutely no intention of addressing salient points within it then STFU and stay away.


4) "Duh. Get your facts straight before going into fantasy land."

Indeed, (applies 100% to) you.


....


A bit further for you fantasyland,

"I'll 'debunk' the 9/11 'conspiracists' "weak" "wrong headed" argument about the hijackers' relative lack of pilot-flying skills"
" ...oh this is an _easy_ one "

Trolls.


No pilots ('hijackers') needed.

Particularly since the Vietnam era, and most certainly by the late 1990s which is precisely the technology that the Boeing 757s and 767s were equipped with on 11 September 2001, remotely piloted vehicle (RPV) technology, commonly known as 'drones', pilotless aircraft, UAV systems have advanced prodigiously. (As we see since 2001 e.g. Afghanistan/Iraq. But it's been widely applied in combat/other systems before this)

although the 'modern' RPV / aerial drone has essentially been under somewhat intense development since World War II — yes in limited / trial use even then — it was in Vietnam / the Indochina conflicts, e.g. the Teledyne Ryan series of RPVs, during which the U.S. in particular advanced aerial drone technology substantially. Ever since then the technology and related systems for unmanned piloting of aircraft, has become so much more ubiquitous and effective.

don't take my word for it. Look into the history of it for yourself.

Lots of good (aviation / aeronautical technology-history) references easily available.

in fact automatic and remote guidance technology for / commercially installable in the Boeing 757, Boeing 767 and many other full size contemporary jetliners was already on the market when 9/11 occurred.

Main purpose is for remote access emergency landing (of stricken aircraft).

If the complexity of __landing__ a full size modern jetliner can be handled by remote control, then ability to guide it in flight to strike a ground targed as would / a la a guided missile, is merely a subset of that.


i.e. if it was already being widely marketed as of 2001, imagine what the U.S. government/MIC then-or-presently has access to (in terms of large jet aircraft remote control systems technology).

think NSA
(oh no we're not listening to your phone calls, we'd never ..... That's conspiracy talk)

nice try - no cigar

Computers Fly Better Than Pilots. The Two-Party Mafia Killed The Three Thousand 26.Jul.2015 03:20

blues

It's really so simple. Since the mafioso Lincoln (who specifically never freed the slaves in the North), we have lived in a mafia state. There was the non-existent "USS Maddox" "incident" in the Gulf of Tonkin to start the insane Vietnam war. There was the CIA's NYC 9/11 "incident" to start the War on Terror austerity.

You think the Replublicrats care about you?

Get machine-free simple score voting, and vote strategically. Stop listening to the "political scientists". They lie for a living. And make lots of cash doing it.

i'll just laugh 26.Jul.2015 14:52

anon

While you spew a huge amount of conspiracy crap into the useless void, I'll respond to one of your hysterical comments. Re navigation.

Clear day. Turn east. Fly a rough heading south of NYC (can be figured out in advance from knowing how many minutes into flight you took over). When you hit the coast, turn left and look for the tall buildings.

Shit people this isn't rocket science.

RE: " i'll just laugh 26.Jul.2015 14:52 " 26.Jul.2015 18:29

L O L

'anon' wrote:
---------------
" While you spew a huge amount of conspiracy crap into the useless void "
---------------

Who mentioned or raised 'concern' about "conspiracy" until the likes of you?

The originally posted article is specifically written about the piloting skills of 9/11 'hijackers'.

as also noted above, based on the observed flight characteristics of the airliner crashes on 9/11 it's not unlikely they were remotely or pre-program guided to their targets.

No pilots ( 'hijackers' ) required whatsoever.

and it's You 'anon' getting hysterical about the mere mention that purported 'hijackers' on 11 September 2001, were blessed with less-than-optimal pilot skills. Particularly in regard to precision guidance at 400+ mph of full sized jet airliners into large urban building targets.


'anon' wrote:
---------------
" I'll respond to one of your hysterical comments "
---------------

Hysterics are 100% you alone.
(which figures, since you adhere to the hysterical, official U.S. government-propogated conspiracy theory about actual events on 11 September 2001)



'anon' wrote:
---------------
" Re navigation "
---------------

Prior to tackling (presumably what you meant) aircraft navigation,

you should learn how to navigate an internet browser. Maybe even learn more about navigating comprehension of the English language itself.

None of that matters of course. Being that your sole purpose commenting here on this site is disinformation / distraction.


'anon' wrote:
---------------
" Clear day. Turn east. Fly a rough heading south of NYC (can be figured out in advance from knowing how many minutes into flight you took over). When you hit the coast, turn left and look for the tall buildings. "
---------------

"Turn east"

"Turn left"

"Fly a rough heading"

"knowing how many minutes into flight you took over"

rofl


OK dude. Time to put down the pipe, dispose of the bongwater.

As ^^previously explained, the originally posted article (and ensuing discussion) is not at all about,

" how on Earth did the hijackers even __find__ New York / The Pentagon "

The primary anomaly with what happened on 9/11 (in relation to flying skills of the purported hijackers) is the _terminal phase_ .

aka Precision guidance at 400+ mph of full sized jet airliners into large urban building targets.

not basic long range navigation.

i.e. (in oversimplified language for 'anon') -
" how did guys who could barely fly single piston engine Cessnas perform those large commercial jetliner terminal target maneuvers at those velocities "


Anyway we got it that you refuse to respond to the actual topics at hand, what was posted/explained in the original piece etc. We also know that your purpose here is Disinformation. Have a good one.


'anon' wrote:
---------------
" Shit people this isn't rocket science "
---------------

Actually (in the case of the 1990s-era Boeing 757 and 767) it is.

Boeing is a well known defense contractor responsible for the LGM-30 Minuteman program, among other ("rockets") missiles.

i.e. the technology put into flight control systems and, is absolutely in part derived from The Boeing Company's decades-prior experience and hardware-systems development on Minuteman, the 707 | 727 | 737 | 747 series of jetliners, etc.

however as concerns the non-pilot likes of you, just booting up the computer / iPhone, approaching the physical vicinity of a keyboard is rocket science.

Missing 27.Jul.2015 07:00

Garth

I've been missing these 9-11 conspiracy theorists and their exciting tales. Thanks for bringing back the laughs.

Laugh It Up, Garth-Ball 27.Jul.2015 13:00

_

.

911 entertainment 27.Jul.2015 16:42

anon

Sure. NSA robots control everything. The phone calls from the planes that were hijacked were all false flags whereby there never were any hijakers in the cockpits, it was all done by remote control. Pre-programmed by Dick Cheney. Right. OK.

Take your meds. Indymedia is always fun!

RE " Take your meds. Indymedia is always fun! " 27.Jul.2015 19:33

ain't just a river in Egypt

Of course this thread (in the 'commentary', such as it is, from anonymous ___) contains absolutely no discussion of the originally posted topic.

just ad hominem, holier-than-thou ridicule, "nothing to see here" etc.


No discussion though of the actual topic.

Namely, what _did_ (?) happen on 11 September 2001.


A fait accompli, unworthy of any discussion from "reasonable" people.


That, in a nutshell, is the thought process of all 9/11 conspiracy theory adherents.


i.e. those who adhere to the conspiracy theory of :

_______Because 19 'Arab' hijackers is why we had to invade Afghanistan and Iraq etc._______


it's as simple and distillable as that, for the likes of Garth and 'anon'.


Denial runs deep and profoundly for them.

(irrespective of / who knows what meds they may be on to keep themselves in such a mental state)


Why Do Good People Become Silent—or Worse—About 9/11?
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2014/10/428454.shtml

Brain Research, Part 2 - Moral Psychology
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2014/08/427880.shtml

now you're making shit up 27.Jul.2015 21:39

anon

It's absolutely clear that the Bush admin abused the moment to make a false link to Iraq so Cheney could make money on a useless war. What happened after 9-11 was a conspiracy to use the moment to twist into a neocon fantasy about remaking the world in the image of the US. That indeed was a conspiracy at the highest level and IMHO war crimes.

Just because the aftermath of 9-11 was bullshit doesn't mean that 19 Saudis didn't hijack and fly the planes. BTW, the Pentagon was not a target, my recollection was that the mastermind of the attacks said the Capitol building was the target and the pilots couldn't find it so they saw the Pentagon and went there instead. So there was no amazing navigation to the Pentagon, the Pentagon was a target of opportunity when they couldn't see the Capitol.

It's a little different hitting the tallest buildings in Manhattan.

'anon' = Making Shit Up. 27.Jul.2015 23:00

.

anon wrote:
--------
" BTW, the Pentagon was not a target "
--------

Wrong.


anon wrote:
--------
" my recollection was "
--------

Wrong. (again, btw)


anon wrote:
--------
" that the mastermind of the attacks said the Capitol building was the target "
--------

The Pentagon, _and_ Capitol building were always targets in the plan, according to Commission testimony by Atta and backed up by the Moussaoui hearing in April 2006 (Capitol building as Flight 93's target).

Making shit up out of thin air again, anon? You never back these claims up.


anon wrote:
--------
" and the pilots couldn't find it so they saw the Pentagon and went there instead "
--------

See above. Both were targeted, from the outset.


anon wrote:
--------
" So there was no amazing navigation to the Pentagon, the Pentagon was a target of opportunity when they couldn't see the Capitol "
--------

Ah yes here again, we have 'anon' the Great Aviator pontificating on the finer points of aerial navigation.

Ri-iight.


anon wrote:
--------
" It's a little different hitting the tallest buildings in Manhattan "
--------

And the Great Aviator 'anon' __knows__ precisely how easy it is to do so.


anon wrote:
--------
" It's absolutely clear that the Bush admin abused the moment to make a false link to Iraq "
--------

Huh?
("the moment") Which moment? Afghanistan was the country illegally invaded and militarily occupied after the 11 September attacks.

RE: "the moment" i.e. the first few weeks after 11 September 2001, you seem to have conveniently forgotten the passage of pre-drafted USA Patriot Act (with virtually zero Congressmembers having read/understood it),
and the Anthrax Attacks (which galvanized mass corporate media fearmongering among the lesser-informed American populace in the key first several weeks after 9/11).


You obviously were not even born at the time of the September 2001 events, because you have exactly zero (0) historical perspective or comprehension.


anon wrote:
--------
" so Cheney could make money on a useless war "
--------

Huh? What? Knock it off with the uninformed (yes, we know-understand you're a disinformationalist...) cliches.

Cheney (obviously) is a central figure as is his company Halliburton, but there were more interests involved in the return (follow-up 1990-1991 Kuwait/Iraq) to get Saddam Hussein and his nationalized oil resources.

The "linking to Iraq" was brought up soon (within weeks) after the 9/11 attacks publicly, by a few politicians e.g. Sen. John McCain - but the real machinations to build up a full scale invasion of Iraq were mainly done behind the scenes...

until summer/fall of 2002, of course when it was openly broached for "legislative review" in Congress, and after that it was a rollercoaster to the spring 2003 illegal invasion and military occupation.

This has all been clearly and exhaustively covered in many books-references, not to mention by simply following along closely with events when/if/as you were there (as you apparently seem to not have been).


anon wrote:
--------
" What happened after 9-11 was a conspiracy "
--------

So there _was_ a conspiracy! you admit.

Actually all of it was (before and after), not just "what happened after".


anon wrote:
--------
" That indeed was a conspiracy at the highest level and IMHO war crimes "
--------

War crimes, yes. Treasonous in fact. (Rumsfeld is still sought internationally for this)

there is historical precedent as well.

Look up a little something named Operation Northwoods. Faked hijackings, decoy aircraft. 1962, the plan was never executed or implemented but drawn up by the Joint Chiefs under JFK.

you might end up even learning something from this thread, anon (but it'll take some honest effort...)


anon wrote:
--------
" to use the moment to twist into a neocon fantasy about remaking the world in the image of the US "
--------

See above RE: "the moment". You have 0% clue of what the **** you're keyboarding about.

"remaking in image of US" — That occurs, and has been occurring (outside the halls of government/military influence) in myriad ways and platforms. Mainly through multinational corporate and oil industry power and influence. (Not because of illegal military invasions and bombing of other countries, which we've done for decades really)

As far as a relative "success" of U.S. military/diplomatic policies since September 2001, that is beyond proven to have been a dismal failure. Study any of the diplomatic and military histories, journals etc. That is, the professionals who work in military, diplomatic and government career fields — do it for a living — and their evaluation of how other countries, people and cultures now perceive the U.S. as compared with prior to 2001.


anon wrote:
--------
" Just because the aftermath of 9-11 was bullshit "
--------

9/11 was planned, and proven to have been known about beforehand. In multiple ways, and through multiple echelons/levels, of the U.S. government and military.

the "aftermath" (??), as though it just happened 'randomly' or 'in reaction sequence' after-the-fact, was in fact planned as well.

See the historical references to planning another Iraq invasion in the 2001-2002 timeframe, at the highest levels of government and military.

Also, the pre-drafted USA Patriot Act.

As well as, the fearmongering/capitalize-on-chaos Anthrax attacks mere weeks after 9/11. A specific strain of weaponized anthrax sourced from only one place: a top secret U.S. military bioweapon

But of course (this specific and unique strain of weaponized anthrax), packaged in a plain white mail envelope with a convenient "Allah is great" inscription enclosed.

Nothing about the "aftermath" was left to chance. In fact, was all solidly planned and charted well in advance.


anon wrote:
--------
" doesn't mean that 19 Saudis didn't hijack and fly the planes "
--------

Back again, to the Magic 19 ("Saudis" according to anon, when in fact the country bombed, illegally invaded and militarily occupied in the month following 9/11 was Afghanistan. i.e. if "Saudi" had any diplomatic, military or cultural significance.)

anon is a bona fide conspiracy theory adherent of the first order.

Not to mention, deep and far gone down the River In Egypt.

keep digging it deeper and deeper, anon

Um, Let's See... 02.Aug.2015 22:10

blues

19 Saudis armed with nothing more than $2.00 dollar box cutters defeated the entire United States Air force.

blues you dummy 03.Aug.2015 08:41

anon

The Saudis with knife cutters didn't defeat the USAF. They cleverly analyzed the security procedures and rules both in the checkpoints and in flight and figured out they could take over the cockpits using blades that met the criteria of the day, using the hijacking procedures (cooperate so no one gets killed) to gain access to the cockpits.

Yes. The 19 Saudis did it, and they didn't overcome the USAF. In fact while the last few planes were ending their flights several armed fighter jets were desperately looking for the planes to shoot them down. 911 was a one-off clever plan that worked better than Bin Laden ever thought possible.

anon: " knife cutters " 03.Aug.2015 22:50

Lol

ayy lmao

Yes, 19 Cave Dwellers With Box Cutters... 03.Aug.2015 23:34

blues

.... defeated the entire United States Air Force.

It's official.

(How much do we pay these losers?)

RE: How much do we pay these losers 04.Aug.2015 00:48

not enough, apparently

how much more ludicrous of a story could you get a country of hundreds of millions of adult citizens,

to swallow hook line and sinker?

still paying dividends with the eternal glorious War On Terra.


dudes who hatched 9/11 and deployed it on anon, remainder of corporate-mass-media-hypnotized Amurricuns are definitely sitting pretty. What a supreme scam.

"Novack" is a Pro Troll 04.Aug.2015 15:51

rAT

Just letting y'all know, although it's become pretty obvious lately. The "hijackers" flight instructor is quoted in the film "Loose Change" as saying those coke sniffing, stripper loving holy "martyrs" were some of the worst and dumbest students imaginable and couldn't even handle a single engine Piper-Cub. Anyone with even a fraction of 911 information over the last 14 years knows that bit of FACT. Wake up! No plane ever hit the Pentagon. No bodies, wreckage or luggage and a lawn to play croquet on. Cheney and the USAF shot one jet full of folks down in Pa. It went down not far from Shanksville, but Shanksville was a false crash scene. That's why an engine was found miles away. USAF nailed it. They also took out the WTC with small nukes in the basements and aerosol bombs everywhere else. That's why it all turned to fine dust before ever hitting the street. Disintegration with "Daisy Cutter" and thermite type weaponry. Building 7 was also demolished with explosives, as no plane ever struck it and little fallout from the Twin Towers touched it. It's all lies and treason from the people who brought you the murder of JFK and the Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. They revel in torture and setting up the innocent to take the fall for their crimes. Think they don't have minions online like Garth and his ilk? They own all the major media networks and newspapers and politicians and pundits. They are total control freaks with no mercy for normal human qualities other than those that can empower them and enslave you. A tipping point is drawing near. Watch films of Trump and Hitler. It's beyond incredible. They both make the same exact movements and facial and hand expressions. I think The Donald has been taking lessons from Adolph. Adolph Hitler studied Mussolini's gestures and expressions on film as part of his climb to the top. Is Trump doing the same, only with Hitler"? Sound crazy? Check it out. It's easy enough to do. A Trump Presidency will most certainly signal a fascist corporate/military grasp for complete power. Trump is the REAL MAFIA GODFATHER ferchrissakes. But not a peep from CNN about those ugly connections. Novack is small potatoes.
it all started right here in 1963   Schoolbook Depository, Dallas
it all started right here in 1963 Schoolbook Depository, Dallas

How good a pilot does one need to be to crash\\\\\\\? 06.Aug.2015 07:40

lol

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 shitty 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.
 link to web.archive.org

buff you 06.Aug.2015 20:47

rAT

Anyone who actually uses the term "conspiracy buff" is a guaranteed Troll. Just the way it is.

[QUOTE]: "chiefly an exercise in data programming. You can learn it at home" 26.Sep.2015 12:35

Lol

THE TROLL wrote:

-----

" 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. "

-----























So again, TROLL, what is it?

is it that, primitive Arabs directed by sat phone out of caves __could__, or __could not__, have attacked the U.S. mainland on 9/11/01?

You ( i.e. your Disinformationalist screed cut-and-pasted from Salon Dawt Com aka The-Newspaper-Which-Booted-Glenn-Greenwald ) can't have it both ways.




More to the point (of how 'mastery of airmanship' — lol — on 9/11/01 was accomplished) -

They __didn't__ need flight school then?

"Good enough" without (Dutch drug trafficker) Rudi Dekkers?

They _only_ needed to stay in Mom's basement long enough on the Sim?

"Data programming" is all that happened on 9/11?
(It is, but not at all in the way that THE TROLL lamely posits...)


All of the (purportedly claimed by THE TROLL) "simple" crashing of airliners in D.C. and NYC on 9/11, could have been easily accomplished by high-school retards who'd done nothing even to venture out of their parents' basements?


Thanks for the cut-and-paste, TROLL but —
NONE of what you posted makes any sense or withstands scrutiny, whatsoever.

p.s. Love salon dawt com's "(name withheld on request)"