It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


FBI Suppressed And Falsified Key Hani Hanjour Evidence

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 01:13 PM

Originally posted by Darthorious
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 did not fly it into, he crashed it into. Any moron can crash a plane.

posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 03:08 PM

posted by Darthorious
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.

posted by 911files
He did not fly it into, he crashed it into. Any moron can crash a plane.

Not while flying down a hill with a high G pull-up at the bottom.

How would a novice Cessna reject pilot know he had to start the pull-up at 778 fps several thousand feet back on the flight path in order to keep from burying in the ground like Wile E Coyote at Shanksville?

Not while flying through 5 light poles at 530 mph while trying to prevent pulling-up too much and overflying the Pentagon.

Not while flying inches above the lawn at 530 mph wings level and trying to hit the reinforced Pentagon 1st floor.

Not while actually flying Over the Naval Annex and totally missing the light poles, the generator, the Pentagon 1st floor, and the A&E Drive Exit Hole. The moron could not possibly crash this plane.

[edit on 7/14/09 by SPreston]

posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 03:33 PM

Originally posted by SPreston
The moron could not possibly crash this plane.

So, lets all listen to Spreston. Who knows nothing about aviation.

What about pilot Giulio Bernacchia?

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.

Or this:

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 shi**y 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.

[edit on 14-7-2009 by CameronFox]

posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 04:29 PM
reply to post by CameronFox

So, lets all listen to Spreston. Who knows nothing about aviation.

Oh, and we all should just listen to you though, as if you are the expert on everything pertaining 911.

"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."

How gullible can one be CameronFox, any one who has looked at a Cessna’s instrument panel and a Boeing 757 and a Boeing 767 know they are completely different from one another. I don’t care if you are an expert “Cessna pilot” with a pilots license. No pilot in the world can just jump in a jumbo commercial Airliner Boeing 757 or 767 and fly that plane for the first time ever like a renegade, top gun pilot and do maneuvers like the world saw on 911, it is imposable. Cameron go to an airport some time and ask to see inside of a Boeing 767 cockpit, it is massive. You have instrument on the panel in front of you and instruments between both seats instruments on the ceiling and you have another major instrument panel behind the pilot’s seats on the right side of the aircraft wall from half way up the wall to the ceiling. I can assure you that either Ken Hertz does not know what he is talking about, or he is helping the lying FBI do damage control.

The hijackers required only the shallow understanding of the aircraft

A shallow understanding? This guy is real funny who does he think he is fooling?

No one can just take over a massive jumbo airliner and reprogram the on board computers with out years of commercial flying experience. A Cessna is not laid out the same way a massive jumbo airliner is. Flying a Cessna is mostly manual, however flying a Boeing 767 or 757 is not, it is flown by onboard computers, “big different here”.

posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 06:14 PM
OK, why don't we check with some real experts. They can be found in the following thread :

''Expert Top Gun/Airline Pilots say Flight 77's maneuvers are impossible''

Do you think that US Navy Top Gun pilots and commercial airline pilots with 40+ years of flying experience, logging 23,000 hours of air-time, know their stuff regarding aviation maneuvers?

If so, do you think you are qualified to argue or disagree with them?

See below what the world's top pilots said about Flight 77, the plane that hit the Pentagon on 9/11. Pay attention to the part in bold.

U.S. Navy 'Top Gun' Pilot Questions 9/11

by Alan Miller Page 1 of 1 page(s)

September 5, 2007 - U.S. Navy Top Gun pilot, Commander Ralph Kolstad, started questioning the official account of 9/11 within days of the event. It just didnt make any sense to me, he said. And now 6 years after 9/11 he says, When one starts using his own mind, and not what one was told, there is very little to believe in the official story.

Now retired, Commander Kolstad was a top-rated fighter pilot during his 20-year Navy career. Early in his career, he was accorded the honor of being selected to participate in the Navys Top Gun air combat school, officially known as the U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School. The Tom Cruise movie, Top Gun reflects the experience of the young Navy pilots at the school. Eleven years later, Commander Kolstad was further honored by being selected to become a Top Gun adversary instructor. While in the Navy, he flew F-4 Phantoms, A-4 Skyhawks, and F-14 Tomcats and completed 250 aircraft carrier landings.

Commander Kolstad had a second career after his 20 years of Navy active and reserve service and served as a commercial airline pilot for 27 years, flying for American Airlines and other domestic and international careers. He flew Boeing 727, 757 and 767, McDonnell Douglas MD-80, and Fokker F-100 airliners. He has flown a total of over 23,000 hours in his career.

Commander Kolstad is especially critical of the account of American Airlines Flight 77 that allegedly crashed into the Pentagon. He says, At the Pentagon, the pilot of the Boeing 757 did quite a feat of flying. I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757s and 767s and I could not have flown it the way the flight path was described.

Commander Kolstad adds, I was also a Navy fighter pilot and Air Combat Instructor and have experience flying low altitude, high speed aircraft. I could not have done what these beginners did. Something stinks to high heaven!

He points to the physical evidence at the Pentagon impact site and asks in exasperation, Where is the damage to the wall of the Pentagon from the wings? Where are the big pieces that always break away in an accident? Where is all the luggage? Where are the miles and miles of wire, cable, and lines that are part and parcel of any large aircraft? Where are the steel engine parts? Where is the steel landing gear? Where is the tail section that would have broken into large pieces?

So, one of the world's best pilots says he CANNOT duplicate the maneuvers of Flight 77, and that it's not possible. What does that tell you?

Are you more qualified than Commander Ralph Kolstad to comment on the maneuver of a 757? Do you have similar qualifications that he does? Have you logged 23,000 hours of flight time? Have you flown fighter jets and 757's for 40 years? What are YOUR qualifications against his?

So carry on spewing your incessant Official Story DRIVEL because that is all it is, DRIVEL.

posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 01:12 AM
SBpreston, please stop with the anti-semitic rhetoric already.

If you want to post evidence be my guest. You actually posted a report this week where you came to the conclusion that the Israelis that the report said weren't involved somehow were.

Maybe Israelis were involved, maybe they weren't. However if you think they were post which ones, why, and post evidence. I tell you what I tell these OS'ers, No evidence = no thanks.

posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 01:19 AM
reply to post by CameronFox

Right, but he's posting the evidence (the first post was full of it BTW, evidence I mean) in the form of expert witness testimony.

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.

And you do the same thing, so I should disregard your expert witness testimony because you cant fly a plane? Can you?

posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 02:14 AM
reply to post by SPreston
Perhaps,Eddie Shalev was an alias? I think it's possible that he was in the country to babysit Hanjour and the others he heard about him failing the evaluations and went ahead and passed him in order to ensure that op continued.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in