IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Two Questions To The Experts

MrDoubtfire
post Feb 3 2014, 09:27 PM
Post #1





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 15
Joined: 31-January 14
Member No.: 7,689



What do you think? I haven't seen this question raised before:

-- Who taught the terrorists how to fly 757s and 767s? --

A story was brought up after 9/11 that this was done by a little flight school in Venice Florida called Huffman Aviation. If my understanding is right, Huffman had only small aircraft. It seems not plausible to me that one can learn on small aircraft how to fly big aircraft.

They had about six months of flight training and then received a license. After such a short time of training, they could fly Boeings into buildings?

In addition: Only two of the four flying terrorists, Mohammed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi, were reported to have been trained at Huffman. Who trained the others? Sounds to me like a cheap cover-up, not a plausible explanation.

I think, a flight training school and their staff would need FAA certification to train for big aircraft. Without the certificates, the school has no business case (and probably would not be allowed) to buy training equipment and develop training programs.

Flying an aircraft into a building successfully on the first attempt doesn't seem a simple maneuver to me. They did that skillfully three times. The fourth aircraft was grounded on the way to NYC, but the fourth building, WTC 7 collapsed without the aircraft, as we remember.

Am I wrong?

For a long time, I believed that once the flight trainers have been identified, the true culprits of 9/11 should be found as well.

Then I learned about the possibility of remote controls, which seems very plausible to me. The job of the terrorists would then have been to get the pilots out of the cockpits to allow a third party to take control of the aircraft from a distance. In such case, it seems further plausible that the terrorists may not have known that the aircraft were to be crashed into buildings. They may have believed that they were going to land somewhere, as former aircraft hijackings have done also. Maybe, they believed that the goal was to hold the aircraft ransom in order to free friends from prisons.

Suicide assassins are commonly much younger and much less educated.

Use of remote controls would also explain why all aircraft were Boeings. The masterminds of the plot didn't have remote systems developed for Airbuses.

The use of remote controls would explain why there is no evidence of big aircraft flight training of the terrorists. They didn't need it.

Remember: The biggest shock for the public was that it is so easy to abuse a Boeing as a weapon. Could this be just Bullshit and it is not easy at all?

If my questions are stupid, please say so.


Here is my second question:

-- Why has FBI not asked this central question and started investigations? --

Kind regards

This post has been edited by MrDoubtfire: Feb 3 2014, 09:29 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Feb 4 2014, 04:45 PM
Post #2



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Welcome to the forum MrDoubtfire,

The following links should hopefully answer most of your questions....

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10785487

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20969

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22481

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18090

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22507

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nathan_Hale
post Feb 5 2014, 08:24 AM
Post #3





Group: Newbie
Posts: 2
Joined: 7-March 08
Member No.: 2,861



MrDoubtfire - for me, this graphic tell it all-read it from bottom up:



It was done around 10 years ago by someone claiming to be a muslim engineer located in Belgium by the name of Mohammad Columbo (kind of weird, I know). He did a paper that covered the behavior of the planes (to included how one could emplace equipment to manually override the pilots) but he took the government's times for the planes' takeoff, hijack and crash and overlaid them.

If we remember that several planes took off late, and accept that there was no communication between them, then this graphic really takes off. The 'times to hijack' are all different-indicating there was no pre-arranged time in flight to begin the hijacking and the 'time until hijack' grows longer with each plane. The comes the case for remote-control that the graphic makes clear: No plane is hijacked until a previous plane is on its final approach.

As for Flt 93, I would speculate that the operators simply ran out of "operational window."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Obwon
post Feb 5 2014, 11:05 AM
Post #4





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 577
Joined: 29-November 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,712



In the effort to make sense of it all, the newcomer is left to struggle through the reams of data that has been collected. The trouble one runs into, after a wide review of the data, is that they must conclude that the data is false, that no investigation was credibly mounted, and that the scheme was prepared from whole cloth, and embellished with as much false data as would allow "conspiracy theorist" to argue as they might over what ever they wanted to.

There has been much analysis by a private investigator of Mohammad Atta's evidence trail, all the way to him boarding a Sun Cruise gambling ship and getting a 10k credit to gamble, approved by none other than Jack Abramoff. Go figure eh? Looking at Portland main one finds that Atta could not have flown from there to Boston as there was no flight that could get him there in time. Less, to board a flight that was not even scheduled to fly that day. No regularly scheduled flight would be unregistered with the BTS system.

The plane flew in impossible ways, with supposed hijacker pilots who could not fly them. All the way to the lack of aircraft debris at the crash sites of all 4 planes, and one must conclude that no planes were ever crashed that day. A supposition that is backed up by the evidence available, if one cares to accept that what's impossible to accomplish in reality has to have been faked.
It is as simple as that. If a person is to be accused of stealing a thing in Boston, for example, that person cannot be in Florida at the time of the theft. If a plane is said to have vaporized on impact, and the science says that the speed needed for that to occur was 5 miles per second, and the aircraft didn't reach that speed, then you must conclude that the lack of debris is due to their not having been any plane. Anything other than the simplest explanations for things is false. How can there be drones, UAV's or missiles that leave no debris? It cannot happen, thus the damages had to have been caused by explosives carefully placed to create the illusions.

But hey, most people are working with minds trained by Hollywood fictional presentations to begin with. Go back an watch movies and thrillers and such, and keep a close watch on the reality of it all, and you will quickly arrive at the fact that while these are all nice, entertaining stories, they are at odds with reality. But you need to be a critical thinker to sort this out for yourself, film makers are not going to give you the answers. Thus, most lay people are trained not to require good answers for what they see, and they are at liberty to create even more fictions, to bolster whatever views they are enamored of.

The simplest error I found in the 911 mix is the fireman's video. It could not have been shot. By the time the men on the ground heard the plane overhead, traveling at the given speed, it would have been too far advanced, for there to be any time to reposition the camera. They are only 1700 feet give or take from the impact. They are some 2,000 feet below the aircraft traveling at supersonic speed. The sound of the plane reaches them in 2 seconds, by which time the plane had already advanced to within some 500 feet or less than a second from impact. Now watch the fireman's video with this in mind. No matter how you try to rework it, it just doesn't add up that Jules can get the shot.

Anyway, none of this means much at all, since many people reject the reality, in favor of believing that much of what they've been told and shown must be true. That being so, there's little to no hope of ever getting everyone on the same page, and that means there is never going to be a solution.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Feb 6 2014, 11:05 AM
Post #5





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Well put Obwon.

I agree the fireman's video, aka Naudet Brothers as I understand it, is a bogus video meant to support the official story.

Years ago here at PFT I found a video from a parking lot video camera somewhere in lower Manhattan. I wish I could find it again, but cannot.

It was a fixed camera with a wide angle lens. In the distance was the face of the North Tower. It recorded the strike, for sure, though it was only a 1 or 2 second event. It was hard to tell exactly, but the plane appeared far too small to be a Boeing. That was corroborated by the various phone calls to NYC 911 by people nearby who had observed the strike. Most all of them declared it was a smaller airplane, maybe corporate, but NOT an airliner.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Obwon
post Feb 6 2014, 03:32 PM
Post #6





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 577
Joined: 29-November 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,712



QUOTE (amazed! @ Feb 6 2014, 10:05 AM) *
Well put Obwon.

I agree the fireman's video, aka Naudet Brothers as I understand it, is a bogus video meant to support the official story.

Years ago here at PFT I found a video from a parking lot video camera somewhere in lower Manhattan. I wish I could find it again, but cannot.

It was a fixed camera with a wide angle lens. In the distance was the face of the North Tower. It recorded the strike, for sure, though it was only a 1 or 2 second event. It was hard to tell exactly, but the plane appeared far too small to be a Boeing. That was corroborated by the various phone calls to NYC 911 by people nearby who had observed the strike. Most all of them declared it was a smaller airplane, maybe corporate, but NOT an airliner.



I lived and worked in that area for over a decade, the only parking lot in that area, that could have had a view of the North tower would have been the one on Canal and Greene Street, and that parking lot had no sight line to the tower, because it was to far off set to the east of West Broadway, I used to walk the area from Canal to WTC many times and also drove there, there just wasn't a parking lot with a view of the towers.

Anyway, the lack of debris and sound, was probably leading people to think that perhaps a small plane had crashed into the towers, I remember on 1010 Wins, I had just come back from voting, and we heard on the news that they were reporting that a small commercial commuter aircraft, twin engine had crashed into the tower. Of course, when we turned on the tv and saw the damage, we knew right away those reports had to be wrong. But by that time they had switched to saying it was a commercial jet, but they hadn't yet mentioned the name of the airline. I guess they'd been told to hold off on identifying any airline, since the Naudet film hadn't been delivered.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bmead
post Feb 9 2014, 06:39 PM
Post #7





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 26
Joined: 1-May 13
Member No.: 7,380



I need some help from the experts and the everyday flier. Well i say everyday i mean those who travelled enough pre-9/11 or know the details enough to help.

Basically what i want confirmation of is Atta's bags

Did he get hold of them again before check in for AA11, or just his carry on

You see this is my reasoning/thoughts

Suqami/Atta/both Al-Shehris were selected for CAPPS.
Now one Al Shehri had no bags according to O.V
If Atta had his bags there is a slim chance that he took out Al Omari's passport for him to check in with.
If he did not, then there is a question-Why on earth would anyone put the passport in cargo bags. And that is the next part of the question.
Today, primarily for immigration i believe but we need our passports at both ends, and once my partner had her passport in our carry on and that got put in the hold. It was a big problem and delay at the other end for us. Anyway my question is, did that happen at the other end too back in 2000/2001
If so then there is no valid reason that Omari Would put in the cargo bag. Ok we could say that he wouldn't need it since he was on a suicide mission, but then why not put it in the normal places like pocket etc, why Atta's bags-the fortunate recovery of which meant the plot began to be unravelled.

At the least with Al Omari having the passport in Atta's bags, it suggests he had none, if Al Shehri also did not then only 3 men had carry ons.
So that means Only 3 Men had weapons for five of them.
If Attas bags were ALL held back. Then only two men had weapons.
By accident ? If two had no bag were they meant to have no weapon or did others carry extras? If others had extra, since the sources i found say that CAPPS selection involves searches of hand luggage too, or at least a scan (and cat x airports x rays are more powerful) It would be somewhat of an alarm if one bag had 3 or four weapons in it.

Anyway. If anyone can confirm most importantly
Did Atta get hold of his bags before AA11 check in
Did they have to show pasports at the other end

Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 16th September 2019 - 12:51 PM