If 9/11 was a inside job, How many people were involved?

originally posted by: samkent
One would have to define 'poorly trained'.
How much training does a vest bomber get?
How much training does a teenager get to run Microsoft Filght sim?

According to law enforcement officials and press reports, the 19 suspected terrorists received flight training from at least 10 U.S. flight schools.

Anyone who has taken these 'demo' filght training from their local air schools knows how little skill it takes to keep a plane in the air on a clear day. Especially if someone else does the takeoff.

keeping a small aircraft in the air is vastly different from nose diving twin engine airliners with pinpoint accuracy into ground targets. This begs several questions.
Why did some of their former pilot school instructors claim they were poor pilots and (along with commercial airline pilots) were not capable of pulling off the attacks? Were they mistaken in their statements?
If that isn't the case and those qualified professionals are correct it would point to two highly possible scenarios and one more unlikely one. Either they got lucky, received undocumented training in airliners prior to the attack or they never even flew the three planes to the targets.

originally posted by: Anonymous ATS
reply to post by seanm

 

Has it ever occured to you, that ANYONE with direct first-hand knowledge of any conspiricy within the U.S. to murder thousands of people on U.S. soil has a VERY good reason not to talk about it? Like conspiracy to commit murder, treason, ETC...

The original designer and engineers were under NDA but there were a lot of individuals listening in at the proposal stage.
I remember the first proposal was to take the twin towers down slowly using a crane, there were cost projections that were to be offset by rent. IF the projected occupancy rates didn't pan out then the towers would need to be imploded. New York would lose face in the latter scenario which might qualify as terrorism.

We really don't need anymore of these "we told you so" threads on ATS they just provoke rants.

a reply to: sg1642

Why did some of their former pilot school instructors claim they were poor pilots and (along with commercial airline pilots) were not capable of pulling off the attacks? Were they mistaken in their statements?

They were poor pilots.
Did you read the reports from the instructors?
The hijackers were not interested in take off or landing instruction/practice. Only level flight and flight computer management.
Buy anyones measure that qualifies as 'poor pilot'.

I took one of those 'introductory' flights many years ago.
I had never flown any plane before. Yet the instructor verbaly told me what to do from beginning to just before touch down.
He never once touched any controls until just before the wheels touched down. I did it all.
Flying is not as hard as many think.

a reply to: vladmirThe only question unbelievers need to answer is this: What made the 3rd building collapse?

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: sg1642

Why did some of their former pilot school instructors claim they were poor pilots and (along with commercial airline pilots) were not capable of pulling off the attacks? Were they mistaken in their statements?

They were poor pilots.
Did you read the reports from the instructors?
The hijackers were not interested in take off or landing instruction/practice. Only level flight and flight computer management.
Buy anyones measure that qualifies as 'poor pilot'.

I took one of those 'introductory' flights many years ago.
I had never flown any plane before. Yet the instructor verbaly told me what to do from beginning to just before touch down.
He never once touched any controls until just before the wheels touched down. I did it all.
Flying is not as hard as many think.

Who gave the "terrorist" the coordinates to the Twin Towers??? Did you see the flight path? Where did they get their directions from???

BTW: Flying a small little personal plane is hardly the same as flying a jumbo jet.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: sg1642

Why did some of their former pilot school instructors claim they were poor pilots and (along with commercial airline pilots) were not capable of pulling off the attacks? Were they mistaken in their statements?

They were poor pilots.
Did you read the reports from the instructors?
The hijackers were not interested in take off or landing instruction/practice. Only level flight and flight computer management.
Buy anyones measure that qualifies as 'poor pilot'.

I took one of those 'introductory' flights many years ago.
I had never flown any plane before. Yet the instructor verbaly told me what to do from beginning to just before touch down.
He never once touched any controls until just before the wheels touched down. I did it all.
Flying is not as hard as many think.

yet their instructors said they could barely manage to (or couldn't at all) control a small single engine aircraft in the manner you have. How did they manage to go from that to navigating and flying a large airliner travelling at hundreds of miles per hour? Then slam them into targets with extreme precision? Perhaps they had been guests of Pinal after all. Or got extremely lucky. Or maybe they never even flew them. Who knows.

The truth is there staring everyone in the face. I laughed in people's faces when they raised this subject in conversation. Then I noticed three things that are dreadfully obvious and documented yet so seemingly unimportant and simple that they are overlooked. If a time comes when I raise enough watt stars I'll share them but I'd rather not discuss them on another persons thread for fear of derailing it. This is a subject that will continue to be debated until it either gets forgotten and people don't care anymore, or new evidence comes to light that utterly proves one side of the divide to be correct beyond any doubt. If it wasn't such a tragic and ghastly event, I think some would find the debate very interesting and thought provoking.

a reply to: sg1642. No, their instructors said that as long as they did not have to worry about taking off or landing, they were more than capable of flying into the buildings. For crying out loud, some of them had commercial pilots licenses.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: sg1642. No, their instructors said that as long as they did not have to worry about taking off or landing, they were more than capable of flying into the buildings. For crying out loud, some of them had commercial pilots licenses.

I've never seen that quoted anywhere could you show me? (I'm not trying to call you a liar or make out I don't believe you buddy don't take that the wrong way.)

originally posted by: McChillin

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: sg1642

Who gave the "terrorist" the coordinates to the Twin Towers??? Did you see the flight path? Where did they get their directions from???

The Flight Management Computer.

a reply to: [post=18813509]sg1642[/po

How did they manage to go from that to navigating and flying a large airliner travelling at hundreds of miles per hour? Then slam them into targets with extreme precision? Perhaps they had been guests of Pinal after all. Or got extremely lucky.

It's one little knob on the computer.
Just turn it to the heading you want and the auto pilot turns and puts you on course.
Once you get within 100 miles of NYC you can pick it out on the horizon. Especially on a clear day.
If you are off course a bit turn the knob a bit.
Once you get within 10-15 grab the stick and aim.

If you look at the video the second plane almost missed the building. Hitting way off center and at an angle not perpendicular. Plus he had a steep bank, indicating he was turning hard to correct his path.
But at long range you can't tell if the structure is at right angle to your heading. Better to hit as best you can instead of attempting a go around and striking some lesser building.

So much for precision.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: [post=18813509]sg1642[/po

How did they manage to go from that to navigating and flying a large airliner travelling at hundreds of miles per hour? Then slam them into targets with extreme precision? Perhaps they had been guests of Pinal after all. Or got extremely lucky.

It's one little knob on the computer.
Just turn it to the heading you want and the auto pilot turns and puts you on course.
Once you get within 100 miles of NYC you can pick it out on the horizon. Especially on a clear day.
If you are off course a bit turn the knob a bit.
Once you get within 10-15 grab the stick and aim.

If you look at the video the second plane almost missed the building. Hitting way off center and at an angle not perpendicular. Plus he had a steep bank, indicating he was turning hard to correct his path.
But at long range you can't tell if the structure is at right angle to your heading. Better to hit as best you can instead of attempting a go around and striking some lesser building.

So much for precision.

what you are missing out is the 3000ft/m accent and the 10000ft/m descent followed by a sharp banking manoeuvre to hit his target at around 500mph. The autopilot didn't pull off those moves. Did this relatively amateur pilot do what many professional pilots say he couldn't? Or are they wrong? I don't mean to be insulting or anything like that buddy but your own post contradicts itself.

a reply to: sg1642

A link to a page that discusses the hijackers and their piloting abilities...

www.911myths.com...

""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" Marcel Bernard...the man who declined to rent a Cessna to Hani Hanjour....

"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 #ty 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"

"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."




www.911myths.com...

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: sg1642

A link to a page that discusses the hijackers and their piloting abilities...

www.911myths.com...

""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" Marcel Bernard...the man who declined to rent a Cessna to Hani Hanjour....

"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 #ty 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"

"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."




www.911myths.com...

what I don't understand is why he wouldn't just slam the aircraft down through the pentagon roof? The official line is certainly possible and could very well be correct. But if you intended to hit a target you wouldn't preform manoeuvres that would present you with a smaller target area. Or keep you in the air longer than necessary when there could be F16s en route to intercept you.

Only three weeks before 9/11 he had tried to rent a small single engine aircraft for a solo flight and failed the test flight. He also had his details passed to the aviation authorities because they presumed his licence was fake. I don't understand how he could go from that to pulling off manoeuvres that many pilots with years of experience admit they couldn't preform. Air traffic controllers who were monitoring him said they thought it had to have been a military fighter to move in the way it did. That is quite a performance for a man who couldn't handle a Cessna three weeks prior.

There was actually a group of airline pilots who flew 757 aircraft for a career. They got in a simulator and tried to replicate the flight path and hit the pentagon. Two thirds of them couldn't do it.

a reply to: sg1642 You did catch that the man who refused to rent him that airplane is the same man that said Hanjour was fully capable of flying the 757 into the Pentagon?


And why he aimed for the side instead of the roof...easy, less chance of missing and greater potential for damage.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: sg1642 You did catch that the man who refused to rent him that airplane is the same man that said Hanjour was fully capable of flying the 757 into the Pentagon?


And why he aimed for the side instead of the roof...easy, less chance of missing and greater potential for damage.

coming in at low level to strike on side of the facade would present much more chance of missing and causing less or no damage. He had a clear run and decided to alter his course. It's that line of thinking I don't understand. Aiming for the roofs of the pentagon rings would have guaranteed more damage and presented the entire surface area of the building as a target. Coming in low with his poor flying skills presented him with a much smaller surface area to strike and the risk of grounding the aircraft.

a reply to: sg1642

and when a crosswind pushes you into the Pentagon courtyard instead of the roof or between the rings insteadt? No, from a targeting standpoint, he picked the right path.

originally posted by: seanm
This is one of the dirty little secrets 9/11 Truthers are unable to address. Not only would it require a substantial number of people to be involved in all of the pre-event activities required for a plan to be pulled off, e.g., planting explosives in the WTC towers, getting NORAD to "stand-down", planning what to do with aircraft and their passengers that "didn't" hit the Pentagon, there would be a far greater number of people having no prior knowledge of the plan who would have known that the explanations of what happened AFTER the events didn't jive with what they knew.

Add to that the many hundreds of non-government investigators and forensic scientists who would have had to either lie or be threatened to put out what would have to be false reports from NIST, FEMA, and ASCE.

Necessarily, thousands of people would know of either the plan in advance and/ or that the the explanations post-event didn't jive with what they personally knew.

The peculiar notion by 9/11 conspiracy buffs that such an event could be planned, executed successfully, and covered-up is far beyond absurd and irrational.

That's why the 9/11 Truth Movement is known by its proper name: the The 9/11 Denial Movement.

Absolute hogwash.

Do you know a single thing about black ops? No you don't

ONE WORD: Compartmented Top Secret information or TS SCI
This is how ALL black ops are carried out, and those within only know enough about what is going on with just their own particular duties, and they know nothing else about it! They don't ask, and they don't say a single thing about what they are doing to anyone.

This is all common knowledge, but when the government is to blame, they use the full power of counterintelligence and the media to provide a smokescreen just like when Bush Jr. felt compelled to go on the air and condemn all the crazy conspiracies that shined a bright light on him. He was afraid at the thought of being pursued by the public, even though he should have just kept silent. Guilt goads people to start saying junk like he did.

See how that works?

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Landing between the rings is a non issue. Still going to do damage. The risks of grounding before target vastly outweigh the risks of a crosswind blowing the aircraft off course. If you were aiming to fly an aircraft into a building you would do just that. You wouldn't bank away and dive to a lower height and make the target much harder to hit.