posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 08:33 AM
Originally posted by lifecitizen
I'm trying to work out if the hijackers that hit the WTC towers were experienced pilots.
I'm reading conflicting reports.
On the one hand we have people like Lear saying it would have been a daunting task for even the most experiencd of pilots- and on the other we have
people saying virtually no flying experience would have been needed
Which is it?.
a) Mohammed Atta's girlfriend (forgot her name) as well as his neighbors testified to the 9/11 commission that he was an accomplished pilot who had
several pilot's licenses from other countries. As he already came into the mix with piloting skills, it's almost certainly the reason how the idea
of using aircraft as suicide weapons came about. Hani Hanjour likewise received a commercial pilot's license in 1999.
b) All of them went through flight simulator training in Florida, and they all passed and received flight certification. They certainly weren't
experts, but they at least knew what all the buttons in the cockpit were for.
c) The hijackers didn't need to be good pilots. All they needed to know how to do is use the automatic pilot and steer the plane for a few minutes.
In the case of flight 77, they recovered the black box and discovered the hijackers dialed Reagan into the flight computer, and the plane navigated
itself to DC. Everything else (communicating with ground controllers, landing and taking off, regulating fuel consumption, etc) were either handled
by the original pilots or weren't needed at all. Obviously, in the case of flight 93, noone needs any piloting skills whatsoever to crash a plane
into the ground.
d) Not all the hijackers needed to be pilots. There only really needed to be four (one per plane) with the rest being muscle to keep the passengers
away from them.
e) The reason you're reading conflicting reports is becuase all these lunatics and con artists are spreading drivel to incite false public paranoia.
You'll see conspiracy proponents wailing how the hijackers made "incredibly complex 270 degree maneuvers" which is simply embellishment for "they
flew in a circle". Just look at the threads here and you'll see people so fanatic in their conspiracy beliefs that they'll even argue over
ridiculously frivolous things like the exact angle of attack flight 93 had hit the ground. You can see right away there's a political agenda to
foist conspiracy theories onto the public regardless of what the facts actually are.
At the end of the day, the question remains the same- if the conspiracy proponents disagree with the 9/11 commission's accounting, fine, but then it
becomes their obligation to provide us with an alternative scenario which better fits the facts, and they have failed miserably at doing so. Argung
over the exact angle of attack that flight 93 hit the ground in no way invalidates the fact that 9/11 was a genuine terrorist attack.