FBI Suppressed And Falsified Key Hani Hanjour Evidence

For those who believe that the inept Hani Hanjour managed somehow to fly a 757 like a fighter pilot, and miraculously flew the aircraft down a hill through five light poles and pulled up with an extremely high G rate to fly the aircraft inches above the lawn and into the 1st floor of the Pentagon; read further.

June 28, 2009 (updated July 7, 2009) by Mark H. Gaffney

How the FBI and 9/11 Commission Suppressed Key Evidence about Hani Hanjour, alleged hijack pilot of AAL 77

The evidence was crucial because it undermined the official explanation that Hani Hanjour crashed American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon at high speed after executing an extremely difficult top gun maneuver. But to understand how all of this played out, let us review the case in bite-size pieces...

In August 2004 when the 9/11 Commission completed its official investigation of the September 11, 2001 attack, the commission transfered custody of its voluminous records to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).[1] There, the records remained under lock and key for four and a half years, until last January when NARA released a fraction of the total for public viewing. Each day, more of the released files are scanned and posted on the Internet, making them readily accessible. Although most of the newly-released documents are of little interest, the files I will discuss in this article contain important new information.

As we know, the 9/11 Commission did not begin its work until 2003–––more than a year after the fact. By this time a number of journalists had already done independent research and published articles about various facets of 9/11. Some of this work was of excellent quality. The Washington Post, for example, interviewed aviation experts who stated that the plane allegedly piloted by Hani Hanjour [AA Flight 77] had been flown “with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm.”[2] Yet, strangely, when other journalists investigated Hani Hanjour they found a trail of clues indicating he was a novice pilot, wholly incapable of executing a top gun maneuver and a successful suicide attack in a Boeing 757. By early 2003 this independent research was a matter of public record, which created a serious problem for the 9/11 Commission...

By all accounts Hani Hanjour was a diminutive fellow. He stood barely five feet tall and was slight of build. As a young man in his hometown of Taif, Saudi Arabia, Hanjour cultivated no great dreams of flying airplanes. He was satisfied with a more modest ambition: he wanted to become a flight attendant. That is, until his older brother Abulrahman encouraged him to aim higher. Even so, Hani Hanjour’s aptitude for learning appears to have been rather limited. Although he resided in the US for about 38 months over a ten-year period that ended on 9/11, Hanjour never learned to speak or write English, a telling observation about his capacity for learning. As we will discover, he actually flunked a written test for a driver’s license just weeks before 9/11.

The FBI File

Fortunately, another newly released document, the FBI file on Hani Hanjour, sheds additional light on the case.[27] The file includes a timeline and evidently was compiled to document the government’s case against Hanjour. I learned about it from a source on the commission, a staffer who insisted to me in an email that it authenticates Hani Hanjour’s flight training. At a glance it appears to do that. However, on closer examination the file is much less impressive and I have to wonder if the staffer actually studied it. As we will see, the document not only falls short of confirming Hanjour’s flight skills, it shows signs of having been “enhanced” to obscure the record.

Crucially, the FBI file includes not a scintilla of evidence that Hani Hanjour ever trained in a Boeing 757. Although Hanjour did some sessions a Boeing 737 simulator, as we have already seen, the press accounts, more importantly, his own instructor’s written evaluation, offer a clear and unambiguous assessment of his actual skills. It is also important to realize that even if Hanjour had mastered the controls of a Boeing 737, this would not have qualified him to execute a high-speed suicide crash in a Boeing 757, a significantly larger and less maneuverable aircraft. Such is the view of commercial pilots who fly these planes every day.[28]

One such pilot, Philip Marshall, who is licensed to fly Boeing 727s, 737s, 747s, as well as 757s and 767s, recently authored a book, False Flag 911, in which he states categorically that the alleged 9/11 hijacker pilots, including Hani Hanjour, could never have flown 767s and 757s into buildings at high speed without advanced training and practice flights in that same aircraft over a period of months. As Marshall put it: “Hitting a 90-foot target [i.e., the Pentagon] with a 757 at 500 mph is extremely difficult -- absolutely impossible for first-time fliers of a heavy airliner. It’s like seeing Tiger Woods hit a 300-yard one-iron and someone telling you he never practiced the shot.”[29] Marshall speculates that the hijackers may have received advanced flight lessons from Arabic-speaking instructors at a secret desert base somewhere in Arizona or Nevada, possibly arranged by complicit Saudi diplomats, or by members of the Saudi royal family.[30] This is why Hanjour’s inability to pass a test flight evaluation at Freeway airport just weeks before 9/11 is so significant: It tends to rule out Marshall’s theory of advanced instruction.

Close inspection of the FBI file also shows that someone padded the record to put the best face on Hanjour’s flight training. This was done in a curious way. Instead of simply informing us that Hanjour took courses “x,” “y” and “z” at such-and-such a flight school between certain dates, the FBI file gives an itemized record of every single day that Hanjour showed up for training at the various schools. The effect creates the appearance of more extensive instruction than actually occurred. Even so, the enhancement is transparently obvious. Imagine the reaction of a potential employer if you or I engaged in this dubious practice in a resume. On closer examination, another reason for padding the record is also obvious. Enhancement tends to obscure Hanjour’s tendency to jump around from school to school and his inability to finish anything he started.

The FBI file also conspicuously fails to mention the Jet Tech instructor’s written evaluation of Hani Hanjour’s flying skills. The omission easily qualifies as suppression of evidence because we know the FBI had the document in its possession. It was made public at the trial of Zacharias Moussaoui when the document was submitted as evidence. This means, of course that the 9/11 Commission also surely had it and similarly suppressed it. (See note #9.)

The FBI file also grossly mischaracterizes what happened at Freeway airport. The file mentions Hanjour’s visits but wrongly indicates that Hanjour received flight instruction. Not true. When I specifically asked Marcel Bernard about this he denied the fact and emphasized that Hanjour’s test flights included no lessons and were strictly for the purpose of evaluation.[31] The FBI should have known as much because after 9/11 Bernard and his two flight instructors notified the FBI about Hanjour’s visit and were subsequently interviewed by FBI agents. The file also conspicuously fails to mention that Hanjour flunked his test flight evaluation! Whether through incompetence or deception, the FBI failed on every point to state the facts correctly.

The FBI file does offer some fresh insights into Hani Hanjour the man. On August 2, 2001, according to the timeline, Hanjour showed up at the Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) in Arlington, where he flunked a standard written test for a Virginia driver’s license. The fact is astonishing and ought to make us wonder how Hanjour ever managed to acquire his previous Arizona driver’s license issued in 1991 and his Florida license issued in 1996, let alone master the controls of a Boeing 757.

www.the911mysteryplane.com...

Also available here and here

[edit on 7/13/09 by SPreston]

Here we have another Israeli flight instructer involved this time with Hani Hanjour, stating that "based on his observations Hanjour was a ‘good’ pilot.” Why would the FBI and 9-11 Whitewash Commission be covering for this guy?

So, Who is Eddie Shalev?

The record compiled by the FBI for the purpose of to authenticating Hani Hanjour‘s flight skills fails to provide convincing substantiation. Notice, for this reason it also fails to support the testimony of the other flight instructor, Eddie Shalev, who certified Hanjour to rent a Cessna 172 from Congressional Air Charters just three days after Marcel Bernard, the chief instructor at Freeway, refused to rent Hanjour the very same plane. The 9/11 Commission Report makes no mention of the incident at Freeway airport, nor does it discuss Eddie Shalev, other than alluding to Hanjour’s certification flight in a brief endnote. This is curious, since it now appears that Shalev’s testimony was crucial. By telling the commission what it was predisposed to hear, Shalev gave the official investigation an excuse to ignore the preponderance of evidence, which pointed to the unthinkable.

So, who is Eddie Shalev? His identity remained unknown for more than seven years, but was finally revealed in one of the files released in January 2009 by the National Archives. The document, labelled a “Memorandum for the Record,” is a summary of the April 2004 interview with Eddie Shalev conducted by commission staffer Quinn John Tamm.[32] The document confirms that Shalev went on record: “Mr Shalev stated that based on his observations Hanjour was a ‘good’ pilot.” It is noteworthy that Tamm also spoke with Freeway instructors Sheri Baxter and Ben Conner, as revealed by yet another recently-released document.[33] Although I was unable to reach Tamm or Baxter for comment, I did talk with Conner, who confirmed the conversation.[34] Conner says he fully expected to testify before the commission. Perhaps not surprisingly, the call never came.

But the shocker is the revelation that Eddie Shalev is an Israeli and served in the Israeli army. The file states that “Mr. Shalev served in the Israeli Defense Forces in a paratroop regiment. He was a jumpmaster on a Boeing C-130. Mr. Shalev moved to the Gaithersburg area in April 2001 and was sponsored for employment by Congressional Air Charters...[which] has subsequently gone out of business.”

The memorandum raises disturbing questions. Consider the staffer’s strange choice of words in describing Shalev’s employment. What did Quinn John Tamm mean when he wrote that Shalev “was sponsored for employment”? Did the commission bother to investigate Congressional Air Charters? It is curious that the charter service subsequently went out of business. But the most important question is: just how thoroughly, if at all, did the commission vet Eddie Shalev? Does his military record include service in the Israeli intelligence community?

Real people have known addresses. But the current whereabouts of Eddie Shalev is unknown. As reported by David Griffin, a 2007 search of the national telephone directory, plus Google searches by research librarian Elizabeth Woodworth, turned up no trace of him. A LexisNexis search by Matthew Everett also came up dry.[35] Recent searches by Woodworth and myself indicate that an "Eddy Shalev" resided in Rockville, Maryland as recently as 2007. However, the associated phone number is no longer in service. The 9/11 memorandum raises the possibility that Shalev may have returned to Israel. Clearly, the man needs to be found, subpoenaed and made to testify under oath before a new investigation, even if this necessitates extradition. Quinn John Tamm and the two Freeway instructors, Sheri Baxter and Ben Conner, should also be subpoenaed. All are key witnesses and obvious starting points for a new 9/11 investigation.

Given his identity, the search for and possible extradition of Eddie Shalev could become controversial. But 9/11 investigators must not be turned aside. We must follow the trail of evidence, regardless. Should it lead into a dark wood, we must resolve to go there; and if it takes us to the gates of hell, so be it. When our search obtains a certain critical mass, momentum will shift decisively in our favor. Public support for a new 9/11 investigation will become irresistible. The light of truth will do the rest...

www.the911mysteryplane.com...

Also available here and here

[edit on 7/13/09 by SPreston]

I'm sorry, but I have some questions.

1. Where is there shown any evidence of the FBI suppressing or falsifying evidence? I saw none in the article you quoted

2. What possible reason would you have for highlighting the fact this pilot is Israeli?

Originally posted by exponent
I'm sorry, but I have some questions.

1. Where is there shown any evidence of the FBI suppressing or falsifying evidence? I saw none in the article you quoted

2. What possible reason would you have for highlighting the fact this pilot is Israeli?

Ditto on the questions.

So... Not only do we have a strong case of no plane hitting the Pentagon, but, the pilot whom didn`t fly into the Pentagon, wasn`t capable of doing it anyway.

But according to the F.B.I, he did turn up to fly every day...

The FBI file also grossly mischaracterizes what happened at Freeway airport. The file mentions Hanjour’s visits but wrongly indicates that Hanjour received flight instruction. Not true. When I specifically asked Marcel Bernard about this he denied the fact and emphasized that Hanjour’s test flights included no lessons and were strictly for the purpose of evaluation.[31] The FBI should have known as much because after 9/11 Bernard and his two flight instructors notified the FBI about Hanjour’s visit and were subsequently interviewed by FBI agents. The file also conspicuously fails to mention that Hanjour flunked his test flight evaluation! Whether through incompetence or deception, the FBI failed on every point to state the facts correctly.

reply to post by 911files


reply to post by exponent


You guys should really take up actually reading articles occasionally; or perhaps a few lessons in reading comprehension would suffice. also see post by Seventh

Close inspection of the FBI file also shows that someone padded the record to put the best face on Hanjour’s flight training. This was done in a curious way. Instead of simply informing us that Hanjour took courses “x,” “y” and “z” at such-and-such a flight school between certain dates, the FBI file gives an itemized record of every single day that Hanjour showed up for training at the various schools. The effect creates the appearance of more extensive instruction than actually occurred. Even so, the enhancement is transparently obvious. Imagine the reaction of a potential employer if you or I engaged in this dubious practice in a resume. On closer examination, another reason for padding the record is also obvious. Enhancement tends to obscure Hanjour’s tendency to jump around from school to school and his inability to finish anything he started.

The FBI file also conspicuously fails to mention the Jet Tech instructor’s written evaluation of Hani Hanjour’s flying skills. The omission easily qualifies as suppression of evidence because we know the FBI had the document in its possession. It was made public at the trial of Zacharias Moussaoui when the document was submitted as evidence. This means, of course that the 9/11 Commission also surely had it and similarly suppressed it.

Notice, for this reason it also fails to support the testimony of the other flight instructor, Eddie Shalev, who certified Hanjour to rent a Cessna 172 from Congressional Air Charters just three days after Marcel Bernard, the chief instructor at Freeway, refused to rent Hanjour the very same plane. The 9/11 Commission Report makes no mention of the incident at Freeway airport, nor does it discuss Eddie Shalev, other than alluding to Hanjour’s certification flight in a brief endnote. This is curious, since it now appears that Shalev’s testimony was crucial. By telling the commission what it was predisposed to hear, Shalev gave the official investigation an excuse to ignore the preponderance of evidence, which pointed to the unthinkable.

Was Eddie Shalev's 'sponsorship' connected to the CIA, the MOSSAD, Al Qaeda, Iraq, or Saudi Arabia? Just who 'sponsored' Eddie Shalev and why wasn't it investigated? Did Shalev work for Usama bin Laden or Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, or did he work for the Bush Regime and the US Military?

Since “Mr Shalev stated that based on his observations Hanjour was a ‘good’ pilot and Israeli Shalev was the only flight instructor that rated Hani Hanjour as 'good', shouldn't this have been a primary consideration of the FBI and 9-11 Whitewash Commission?

Unless of course their primary objective was a cover-up of the 9-11 perps and a cover-up of the fact that Hani Hanjour could not possibly have piloted that 757 aircraft into the Pentagon.

So not only did the real aircraft fly Over the Naval Annex far from the official flight path through the light poles and into the Pentagon damage path; but also Hani Hanjour could not have possibly done it anyway. Correct guys?

But the shocker is the revelation that Eddie Shalev is an Israeli and served in the Israeli army. The file states that “Mr. Shalev served in the Israeli Defense Forces in a paratroop regiment. He was a jumpmaster on a Boeing C-130. Mr. Shalev moved to the Gaithersburg area in April 2001 and was sponsored for employment by Congressional Air Charters...[which] has subsequently gone out of business.”

The memorandum raises disturbing questions. Consider the staffer’s strange choice of words in describing Shalev’s employment. What did Quinn John Tamm mean when he wrote that Shalev “was sponsored for employment”? Did the commission bother to investigate Congressional Air Charters? It is curious that the charter service subsequently went out of business. But the most important question is: just how thoroughly, if at all, did the commission vet Eddie Shalev? Does his military record include service in the Israeli intelligence community?

9 Hani’s Jet Tech evaluation and other documentation were entered as evidence during the trial of Zacharias Moussaoui. Training Records, Hani Hanjour, B-737 Initial Ground Training, Class 01-3-021, Date: 2/8/01, Jet Tech International, posted at www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

www.globalresearch.ca...

[edit on 7/13/09 by SPreston]

Preston, I was copied this via email weeks ago and I have no comment on Mark's work. It does not however support your OP. So again, please connect the dots for us.

''The file also conspicuously fails to mention that Hanjour flunked his test flight evaluation! Whether through incompetence or deception, the FBI failed on every point to state the facts correctly. ''

Hani Hanjour COULD NOT FLY A KITE, let alone perform a top gun maneuver and crash into the Pentacon.

(whatreallyhappened.com...)

"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe." [NATCA]

[Flight Academy] Staff members considered him a very bad pilot. "I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon," the former employee said. "He could not fly at all."

''...they found he had trouble controlling and landing the single-engine Cessna 172''.
''...chief flight instructor Marcel Bernard declined to rent him a plane without more lessons. ''
''...but never finished coursework for a license to fly a single-engine aircraft'', Gerald Chilton Jr
"This guy could not solo a Cessna 150 ... and what I mean by solo is a pilot's first time out without anyone in the cockpit with him. It's the most simple, the most fundamental flying exercise one can engage in..."
''his performance struck his flight instructors as sub-standard, they discouraged Hanjour from continuing ''

So Hani (hang-on-i-will-get-the-hang-of-it) Hanjour

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/615929aeaf8a.gif[/atsimg]

he could not pilot this...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8a69d0882d1b.jpg[/atsimg]

then he suddenly became this

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4ff2a5f1561c.jpg[/atsimg]

and expertly piloted this

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0a4757d992ca.jpg[/atsimg]

INCHES above the ground into the Pentacon

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/45e3c823f5b5.jpg[/atsimg]


Just how more ridiculous can the Official Story get ?
How on earth can reasonably minded people still believe this nonsense ?

Originally posted by mumblyjoe
How on earth can reasonably minded people still believe this nonsense ?

That's easy.

Those reasonably minded people are hanging on to the official nonsense for dear life, the dear life of the flattering and self righteous view they have of themselves.

The moment they don't believe it is the moment that they have to accept that they have been supporting mass murderers and war criminals for the last seven or so years and aiding and abetting them in their crimes. They have to accept that they are just as dumb as those dopey Germans who supported Hitler and just as responsible for the crimes their leaders got away with.

That's why they hang onto the crap, because they don't have the strength of character to paddle the canoe to the shore before it goes over Niagara Falls, because they would rather go over the falls than admit a mistake.

There are people out there who would rather shoot you in the head than admit they were stupid enough to be taken in by a traitor, murderer and war criminal. It's all about pride.


[edit on 13-7-2009 by ipsedixit]

Originally posted by ipsedixit

Originally posted by mumblyjoe
How on earth can reasonably minded people still believe this nonsense ?

That's easy.

Those reasonably minded people are hanging on to the official nonsense for dear life, the dear life of the flattering and self righteous view they have of themselves.
[edit on 13-7-2009 by ipsedixit]

All due respect fellows, I have challenged every aspect of the 'official story' and as the original author (Mark Gaffney) will verify, I have even challenged some of those who developed the the 'official story' directly.

I've examined the evidence for myself and reached my own conclusions. Are there still some aspects of the Pentagon attack which require additional data to understand? Absolutely! However, these false characterizations of flight 77 performing some 'top gun' maneuver are simply WRONG. And analysis of the altitude and positional data in the FDR is anything but well controlled and even after the FDR data ends (west of the Sheraton Hotel by the way), the flight is anything but smooth according to witnesses (he hit light poles and almost bellied up on the front lawn).

Now there are a lot of OPINIONS, but very little in the way of hard evidence that anything but American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. There is a complete radar track from the time it took off from Dulles until the time it hit the Pentagon from multiple sources. Contrary to what many would have people believe, there is a complete visual/radar witness record from IAD and DCA controllers taken on 9/11 and/or 9/12 that demonstrate that the radar track ended at the Pentagon real-time so the radar data has not been altered post-event. DCA controllers in the tower who could see the plane watched it terminate at the Pentagon and did not see it fly over and/or re-emerge from the other side.

So no, it has nothing to do with ‘the flattering and self righteous view’ I have of myself, but rather what the evidence indicates when examined objectively.

reply to post by 911files


Can you demonstrate how Hani Hanjour or any pilot "(he hit light poles and almost bellied up on the front lawn)" from Over the Naval Annex? You see; that is where all verified eyewitnesses place the aircraft (Over the Naval Annex) and the FAA concurs. It is just not possible to take out the light poles from up there. Not even with a highly manuverable fighter jet in the hands of an ace pilot.

FAA flight path


1 AWA 714 pentagon_more2.mpg (mpg file, 12 mb)
Download the FAA original animation - right-click and save to hard drive

The list of MSM invented alleged eyewitnesses who nobody can seem to find, is worthless without verification. Perhaps the Center For Military History questioned them also; but all those files are still censored aren't they? And even if those alleged 104 witnesses actually existed and were interviewed by the CMH; if their testimonies were released by FOIA, their names and important details would be redacted wouldn't they for NATIONAL SECURITY purposes.

We already know that Mike Walter and Jamie McIntyre and Keith Wheelhouse and Joel Sucherman and Aziz ElHallan and Lloyde England are proven liars and Gary Bauer and Bobby Eberle have been dedicated liars for decades. Those are all your liars.

None of the Over the Naval Annex eyewitnesses have been proven to be liars; even though the pseudoskeptics and government loyalists and shills keep snidely hinting that they are liars.

You get no respect from us Farmer.

Originally posted by SPreston
reply to post by 911files

 

Can you demonstrate how Hani Hanjour or any pilot "(he hit light poles and almost bellied up on the front lawn)" from Over the Naval Annex? You see; that is where all verified eyewitnesses place the aircraft (Over the Naval Annex) and the FAA concurs. It is just not possible to take out the light poles from up there. Not even with a highly manuverable fighter jet in the hands of an ace pilot.

FAA flight path

1 AWA 714 pentagon_more2.mpg (mpg file, 12 mb)
Download the FAA original animation - right-click and save to hard drive

The list of MSM invented alleged eyewitnesses who nobody can seem to find, is worthless without verification. Perhaps the Center For Military History questioned them also; but all those files are still censored aren't they? And even if those alleged 104 witnesses actually existed and were interviewed by the CMH; if their testimonies were released by FOIA, their names and important details would be redacted wouldn't they for NATIONAL SECURITY purposes.

We already know that Mike Walter and Jamie McIntyre and Keith Wheelhouse and Joel Sucherman and Aziz ElHallan and Lloyde England are proven liars and Gary Bauer and Bobby Eberle have been dedicated liars for decades. Those are all your liars.

None of the Over the Naval Annex eyewitnesses have been proven to be liars; even though the pseudoskeptics and government loyalists and shills keep snidely hinting that they are liars.

You get no respect from us Farmer.

First Preston, that is NOT an FAA animation. I have personally communicated with the individual in NORAD that commissioned that animation and it is an approximation based on the RADES data. As you already are aware, a non-AAL77 return was included from the debris cloud (verified by 5 addtional radar sets and ATC statements).

Not much sense in me responding further when you can't even get your facts straight.

reply to post by 911files


Oh really? I don't believe you. It is US Government issue whether FAA or not.

From the video.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d9de29ff0c17.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e185287aa7ca.jpg[/atsimg]



[edit on 7/14/09 by SPreston]

Oh my, what don't you believe? You just posted pics that verify what I just said. Seeing as how I am the one who obtained the animation via FOIA in the first place.....

Believe what you want (you will anyways) and thanks for verifying what I said.

The Fairfax County Police Department helicopter pilots flew the FAA determined path on September 12th for the FBI based on FAA radar data. Here is a photo taken at the end of that flight. Now please show me how the real-world FAA reconstruction matches that animation you credit the FAA with.



[edit on 14-7-2009 by 911files]

Originally posted by SPreston


Oh really? I don't believe you.

No worries John!

I and the rest of the NWO - Internet Schills believe you. That's all that should matter.

Originally posted by CameronFox

Originally posted by SPreston


Oh really? I don't believe you.

No worries John!

I and the rest of the NWO - Internet Schills believe you. That's all that should matter.

Its not a matter of belief...the data used to create the animation is publicly available for anyone to review. The company that created it for NORAD has it posted on their website. The person who commissioned it still works for NORAD. Do your homework Preston and deal with reality and not what you want to believe.

reply to post by 911files


Your disinformation is really getting old.

Multiple eyewitnesses (20+) placed the actual flight path Over the Naval Annex and your helicopter photo is nowhere near Over the Naval Annex. They could have just as easily taken it over Disneyland where other fantasy tales abound.

Your alleged Flight 77 FDR and the 84 RADES data are fraudulent.

Corerected version of NORAD-USSPACE flight path animation Over the Naval Annex

NORAD - USSPACE flight path


1 AWA 714 pentagon_more2.mpg (mpg file, 12 mb)
Download the NORAD - USSPACE original animation - right-click and save to hard drive

Originally posted by SPreston

Your disinformation is really getting old.

Translation: "Sweet Jesus, I can't back out of this one... "

The next post by Spreston will be a cute picture with the "911 Was An Inside Job" slogan.

So predictable.

[edit on 14-7-2009 by CameronFox]

All I know is if in fact he couldn't solo a Cessna then there is no way he flew the plane perfectly into the pentagon never mind the flight path, as at that point it doesn't matter.

He would of had to have the plane perfectly above ground level and know the elevation the pentagon sits at and not only that he would have to keep from overshooting it.

If you can't solo a plane chances are you are under or over shooting the runway because you are not relying on or understanding the instruments, and you obviously have no depth perception what so ever.

Anyone who says different has never flown a plane before or is just plain ignorant. In perfect weather conditions the actual flying is a piece of cake a 5 year old could do it no problem. The problem is landing the stupid thing. Every airport or landing strip has a different elevation and you have to adjust your instruments accordingly. Not to mention you use beacons, ATC and the flight plan all at the same time for you approach so you don't over or under shoot the runway.

If the plane had hit the pentagon in the middle I would totally believe it that is not hard to do just point and crash. If it skidded all over the place from undershooting it that would be very believable too but there would be massive amounts of evidence if this happened.

The 2 pics released of the plane nose and then the impact site no way someone who couldn't fly a Cessna solo could do a surgical strike like that unless outside help was used.

So if in fact he couldn't pass a solo and a plane did hit the pentagon then they got the wrong man no doubt on that. I'm not even sure I could pull that off lol. I know I couldn't on that flight path he took if it was a straight on flight path I could.

Originally posted by SPreston
reply to post by 911files

 

Your disinformation is really getting old.

Multiple eyewitnesses (20+) placed the actual flight path Over the Naval Annex and your helicopter photo is nowhere near Over the Naval Annex. They could have just as easily taken it over Disneyland where other fantasy tales abound.

Your alleged Flight 77 FDR and the 84 RADES data are fraudulent.

Corerected version of NORAD-USSPACE flight path animation Over the Naval Annex

NORAD - USSPACE flight path

1 AWA 714 pentagon_more2.mpg (mpg file, 12 mb)
Download the NORAD - USSPACE original animation - right-click and save to hard drive

Yes and the IAD, BWI, DCA, ADW ASR radar data is fraudulent. So are the handwritten ATC statements that back up the TRACON radar data. So are all of the ATC audio recordings that give us a real-time record of what the ATC's were seeing on the radar. It is all fraudulent.

Preston, how can I say this kindly? You are an idiot.