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 )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Questions About Pilots For 9/11 Truth Documentary

hjw3001
post Mar 19 2007, 02:14 PM
Post #1





Group: Newbie
Posts: 8
Joined: 19-March 07
Member No.: 789



A friend sent me the link to your documentary on Google video. I watched it to the end though I was left frustrated with a number of questions I wish the movie had addressed. Maybe you'll know some of the answers to these questions or consider addressing them in a future movie.
The movie describes Hani Hanjour as an inexperienced pilot unable to fly such a complicated plane. Fair enough, but why no discussion of the other hijackers and the potential that one of them could have flown the plane? Are we to assume that only Hani Hanjour had flight training and insufficient training at that?

The movie offers an alternate flight plan where the long 360 degree or so turn is not necessary to hit the Pentagon. Presumably this was done with Microsoft Flight Simulator or some similar software. What is the flight experience of the person performing this alternate flight path? Is the pilot a commercial airline pilot with hours of experience in a Boeing 757? How much real world or flight simulator experience is needed to perform such a flight path? How many attempts did it take to get it right?

The movie's web site is called "Pilots for 9/11 Truth", so where are the pilots offering expert testimony in the film? What are the pilot credentials of the film makers and narrator?

The movie goes to great lengths to point out the inconsistencies in the two flight plan simulations. What might account for this, other than data manipulation by some government agency? Could there simply be some differences in the computer data used to produce the video clips? How accurate are these data sources? Also, I wish the film went into more detail on the accuracy of the flight data recorder information. How accurate is the information? Is it GPS based, where there is a margin of error? What about the barometric readings and what they say about the plans altitude. For a plane descending at a high rate of speed, how accurate are those readings? How fast can the plane's measuring devices keep up with a rapid descent? The film maker seems to jump to the conclusion that data manipulation and cover up are the answer.

The movie also repeatedly plays the quote of a conversation between the Vice President and an aide. The quote by itself doesn't say much and may simply be taken out of context (is their more to the testimony before Congress that would clarify what they were talking about?). Are the orders Cheney is referring to, 1) to shoot the incoming plane down? 2) to have the incoming plane launch it's secret missile at the Pentagon?

The whole cruise missile part seems to border on the absurd, and seems to hing on how the Pentagon security camera explosion footage looks similar to stock footage of a cruise missile hitting a test building. Why no discussion of the plane wreckage photos that can be found by Googling "flight 77 plane wreckage". If a cruise missle or something else hit the Pentagon why no discussion in the film or what then happened to Flight 77, the plane, it's crew, and passengers?

Thanks for your time in considering my questions. I hope you can respond with answers.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guinan
post Mar 19 2007, 03:14 PM
Post #2


Location: Netherlands


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,702
Joined: 15-October 06
From: Netherlands
Member No.: 72



Hello hjw3001,

welcome to Pf911T !

May I point out that it would be considered polite if you introduced yourself first in the 'Welcome All' section of this forum.

As your first post contains mostly critique of the PBB-video, I am taking the liberty of moving it to the Debate-forum, where most members can answer your questions.

Guinan (Mod)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 19 2007, 03:19 PM
Post #3



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,744
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



This person emailed me the same questions.. i replied in the email...

QUOTE
Hi H,

Thank you for your email..

The govt claims Hani was the one flying the aircraft.. its not our claim. Please google the 9/11 Commission Report and read it.

I performed the flight path. I have taught hundreds of students. I know how an inexperienced pilot thinks and human nature in flight. If an inexperienced pilot wanted to hit the pentagon he would have dove into it from what was shown. The 330 degree maneuver (not 360) was performed to hit a specific section of the pentagon. Pilots regularly use that type of a maneuver if they want to land at a specific point (military pilots especially..). Why would a 'terrorist' want to perform such a maneuver to hit a reinforced section of the pentagon made to withstand such an impact that was mostly empty? Are we to believe that these 'terrorists' prepared so well to overcome our nations defenses but they didnt do their homework to find out the weakest and most vunerable impact point that would be heavily occupied? These 'terrorists' who want to kill the Great Satan? These 'terrorists' who "hate our freedoms" and who learned how to evade our defenses but cant get over the border with the million other mexicans?

Pilot credentials can be found here..
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html

Most of the rest of your questions we are trying to get answers from the source.. the NTSB and FBI. So far they have refused to cooperate and/or 'correct' their data. Feel free to call the NTSB yourself and ask them the same questions. Let us know how you make out.

202-314-6000 NTSB HQ Wash DC.

Our film does not present theory or speculation (except for the possibilities based on factual information provided by the NTSB). You are asking us to speculate and you are further speculating on our conclusions. We report the facts. The facts are in the film. The questions you have are valid. Ask the govt like we have been trying to do. We dont make excuses for this data as some people try to do. We go to the govt for answers. They dont seem to want to answer...  (hint: because they cant explain it... when correcting for one 'error' it domino's into the next. .such as altimeter lag excuse presents a greater vertical speed which will further conflict with DoD 5 frames video. The FDR information all cross checks the way it is now.. .you need to learn what cross checking means).

Also, do more research on our site, listen to a few of the radio interviews that were done as many issues are addressed which may give you a more clear picture.

Hope this helps..
-pilotsfor911truth.org
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beached
post Mar 19 2007, 03:36 PM
Post #4





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 802
Joined: 20-October 06
Member No.: 117



Excellent letter Rob! cheers.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hjw3001
post Mar 19 2007, 03:53 PM
Post #5





Group: Newbie
Posts: 8
Joined: 19-March 07
Member No.: 789



QUOTE (johndoeX @ Mar 19 2007, 02:19 PM)
This person emailed me the same questions.. i replied in the email...

QUOTE
Hi H,

Thank you for your email..

The govt claims Hani was the one flying the aircraft.. its not our claim. Please google the 9/11 Commission Report and read it.

I performed the flight path. I have taught hundreds of students. I know how an inexperienced pilot thinks and human nature in flight. If an inexperienced pilot wanted to hit the pentagon he would have dove into it from what was shown. The 330 degree maneuver (not 360) was performed to hit a specific section of the pentagon. Pilots regularly use that type of a maneuver if they want to land at a specific point (military pilots especially..). Why would a 'terrorist' want to perform such a maneuver to hit a reinforced section of the pentagon made to withstand such an impact that was mostly empty? Are we to believe that these 'terrorists' prepared so well to overcome our nations defenses but they didnt do their homework to find out the weakest and most vunerable impact point that would be heavily occupied? These 'terrorists' who want to kill the Great Satan? These 'terrorists' who "hate our freedoms" and who learned how to evade our defenses but cant get over the border with the million other mexicans?

Pilot credentials can be found here..
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html

Most of the rest of your questions we are trying to get answers from the source.. the NTSB and FBI. So far they have refused to cooperate and/or 'correct' their data. Feel free to call the NTSB yourself and ask them the same questions. Let us know how you make out.

202-314-6000 NTSB HQ Wash DC.

Our film does not present theory or speculation (except for the possibilities based on factual information provided by the NTSB). You are asking us to speculate and you are further speculating on our conclusions. We report the facts. The facts are in the film. The questions you have are valid. Ask the govt like we have been trying to do. We dont make excuses for this data as some people try to do. We go to the govt for answers. They dont seem to want to answer...  (hint: because they cant explain it... when correcting for one 'error' it domino's into the next. .such as altimeter lag excuse presents a greater vertical speed which will further conflict with DoD 5 frames video. The FDR information all cross checks the way it is now.. .you need to learn what cross checking means).

Also, do more research on our site, listen to a few of the radio interviews that were done as many issues are addressed which may give you a more clear picture.

Hope this helps..
-pilotsfor911truth.org

Thanks for your quick response. I wish you had addressed my last two questions, why keep repeating a vague second hand comment from the Vice President? What does this add to your film? What fact does this add? Also, why show all the cruise missile footage, again where are the facts for a cruise missile instead of a plane?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 19 2007, 03:53 PM
Post #6



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,744
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Thanks... well.. it was better than this email i recieved.. no doubt Troy From WV. rolleyes.gif

Needless to say, it didnt warrant a reply..lol

QUOTE
To: pilots@pilotsfor911truth.org
Subject: Call me fucktards
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 13:23:37 -0400
From: XXXXXX@aol.com  Add to Address Book  Add Mobile Alert 
    I'll tell you how f*cking insane you are you rotten pieces of f*cking Osama loving filth.

304-XXX-XXXX.



was reported to aol though..
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 19 2007, 03:59 PM
Post #7



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,744
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE
H <xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxx.org> wrote:
Hi,

Thanks for your quick response. I wish you had addressed my last two questions, why keep repeating a vague second hand comment from the Vice President? What does this add to your film? What fact does this add? Also, why show all the cruise missile footage, again where are the facts for a cruise missile instead of a plane?

Regards,
H






QUOTE
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 12:59:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Pilots For Truth" <pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com>  View Contact Details  Add Mobile Alert 
Subject: Re: Questions about your documentary
To: "H" <xxxx@xxx.org>
   
The Vice-president comment is a part of the factual investigation into the attack on the pentagon. We didnt speculate or draw conclusions based on it... we left that up to the viewer. If you support the govt story, im not surprised you would want to leave that out..

The 'cruise-missle' is not fact. We dont claim that is what happened. We are showing the 'possibilities' based on the information provided by the govt and asking the question "Is it possible this might have happened?"

Now, if you want to debate these issues, i see you have made a thread on our forum. Please keep it in one place... thanks

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...opic=5526&st=0&
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
grizz
post Mar 19 2007, 04:05 PM
Post #8


aka Oceans Flow


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,211
Joined: 19-October 06
From: Oregon
Member No.: 108



If you're sincere I think these questions are reasonable. But if you're here to cause trouble, might as well tell you that the admins will show you the door. cleanup.gif

welcome.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beached
post Mar 19 2007, 04:47 PM
Post #9





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 802
Joined: 20-October 06
Member No.: 117



QUOTE (johndoeX @ Mar 19 2007, 07:53 PM)
Thanks... well.. it was better than this email i recieved.. no doubt Troy From WV.  rolleyes.gif

Needless to say, it didnt warrant a reply..lol

QUOTE
To: pilots@pilotsfor911truth.org
Subject: Call me fucktards
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 13:23:37 -0400
From: XXXXXX@aol.com  Add to Address Book  Add Mobile Alert 
    I'll tell you how f*cking insane you are you rotten pieces of f*cking Osama loving filth.

304-XXX-XXXX.



was reported to aol though..

Well, emails like this merely sum up the mentality of much of the opposition. In actual fact they're paying us a back-handed compliment!

cheers.gif

This post has been edited by Beached: Mar 19 2007, 04:47 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hjw3001
post Mar 19 2007, 05:12 PM
Post #10





Group: Newbie
Posts: 8
Joined: 19-March 07
Member No.: 789



QUOTE
The Vice-president comment is a part of the factual investigation into the attack on the pentagon. We didnt speculate or draw conclusions based on it... we left that up to the viewer. If you support the govt story, im not surprised you would want to leave that out..


I am open to alternative answers to what happened on 9/11. That being said, I'm curious as that what the VPs comments were all about. Is there more to the testimony that would indicate the orders he is referring to? What do folks on this thread think Cheney was referring to?

QUOTE
The 'cruise-missle' is not fact. We dont claim that is what happened. We are showing the 'possibilities' based on the information provided by the govt and asking the question "Is it possible this might have happened?"


I'm confused, how does the information provided by the government lead you to think one of the possibilities is a cruise missle would have been used?

QUOTE
Now, if you want to debate these issues, i see you have made a thread on our forum. Please keep it in one place... thanks


Will do.

This post has been edited by hjw3001: Mar 19 2007, 05:53 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hjw3001
post Mar 19 2007, 05:16 PM
Post #11





Group: Newbie
Posts: 8
Joined: 19-March 07
Member No.: 789



QUOTE
If you're sincere I think these questions are reasonable.  But if you're here to cause trouble, might as well tell you that the admins will show you the door.


I am sincere in my asking of these questions. I have a friend and a relative who are both active in keeping up with the alternative answers to 9/11 movies, websites, etc. They send me links to movies such as yours. I find the topics interesting, but was left with the questions described in my e-mails and posts. As a technical person (Computer Engineer) these are the questions that occurred to me while watching your documentary.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hjw3001
post Mar 19 2007, 05:26 PM
Post #12





Group: Newbie
Posts: 8
Joined: 19-March 07
Member No.: 789



QUOTE
I performed the flight path. I have taught hundreds of students. I know how an inexperienced pilot thinks and human nature in flight. If an inexperienced pilot wanted to hit the pentagon he would have dove into it from what was shown. The 330 degree maneuver (not 360) was performed to hit a specific section of the pentagon. Pilots regularly use that type of a maneuver if they want to land at a specific point (military pilots especially..). Why would a 'terrorist' want to perform such a maneuver to hit a reinforced section of the pentagon made to withstand such an impact that was mostly empty? Are we to believe that these 'terrorists' prepared so well to overcome our nations defenses but they didnt do their homework to find out the weakest and most vunerable impact point that would be heavily occupied? These 'terrorists' who want to kill the Great Satan? These 'terrorists' who "hate our freedoms" and who learned how to evade our defenses but cant get over the border with the million other mexicans?


As someone with no background in flight training, I'll take your word that an inexperienced pilot would go straight for the target. Piloting a plane that big in a 330 degree turn also seems like a complicated maneuver. I'm not really sure what you could hope to gain by asking why would a terrorist do such a move. Are you saying he knew which section was reinforced and hit it on purpose? Is there any proof to back up such a claim?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
skeeve
post Mar 19 2007, 05:55 PM
Post #13





Group: Newbie
Posts: 4
Joined: 19-March 07
Member No.: 790



I just want to say that I think hjw3001's questions are valid and that it's pretty lame to automatically assume that he is trying to stir up trouble.

The film, while interesting and informative, does present a number of "alternative theories" and it's not always clear what is fact and what is theory.

I think it's important not to come off as some exclusive club of believers. We want to welcome new comers and give them a reason to keep asking questions not scare them off.

Robert
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 19 2007, 06:21 PM
Post #14



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,744
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (skeeve @ Mar 19 2007, 05:55 PM)
The film, while interesting and informative, does present a number of "alternative theories" and it's not always clear what is fact and what is theory.

please post time stamps in the film that presents "a number of alternative theories" and not possibility based on factual information provided by the govt.

Thanks.

I know you guys have alot of questions, but you are asking us to speculate. Pilots/aviation professionals do not do that.

We go to the govt for the answers. They are refusing to answer thus far.

Please take your questions to the govt and let us know how you make out. The number is provided above.

In the meantime, we will continue to pressure the govt for answers while reporting the facts/conflicts within the govt story.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 19 2007, 06:27 PM
Post #15



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,744
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (hjw3001 @ Mar 19 2007, 05:12 PM)
I'm confused, how does the information provided by the government lead you to think one of the possibilities is a cruise missle would have been used?

If the govt information shows the aircraft too high (and it was confirmed 100% accurate), what would you offer as a possibility that brought down the poles and caused all the damage, lack of 757 debris and that nice round exit hole out of the C ring?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 19 2007, 06:32 PM
Post #16



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,744
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (hjw3001 @ Mar 19 2007, 05:26 PM)
As someone with no background in flight training, I'll take your word that an inexperienced pilot would go straight for the target. Piloting a plane that big in a 330 degree turn also seems like a complicated maneuver. I'm not really sure what you could hope to gain by asking why would a terrorist do such a move. Are you saying he knew which section was reinforced and hit it on purpose? Is there any proof to back up such a claim?

Hani was worse than an 'inexperienced pilot'...

Excellent thread and thorough research done by NK-44 on Hani Hanjour. Any pilot reading this raises an eyebrow regarding Hani.
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...?showtopic=3550

Do you think a 'terrorist' would do so much homework as to evade our defenses and turn our aircraft into missles... but not see that the section of the pentagon was highly visible in its renovation, not to mention the fact they wouldnt think to figure out where Rummy was sitting? (on the opposite end of the building..)


please...

Wheres that BS flag...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 19 2007, 06:35 PM
Post #17



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,744
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



here it is...

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hjw3001
post Mar 19 2007, 06:36 PM
Post #18





Group: Newbie
Posts: 8
Joined: 19-March 07
Member No.: 789



QUOTE
please post time stamps in the film that presents "a number of alternative theories" and not possibility based on factual information provided by the govt.

I know you guys have alot of questions, but you are asking us to speculate. Pilots/aviation professionals do not do that.

We go to the govt for the answers. They are refusing to answer thus far.


JDX Edit: Attempts at putting words in my mouth and slander.

The cruise missle story isn't part of the official government report. The potential for a second plane or the implications that the hijackers didn't have the necessary skills yet knew exactly where to crash to cause the least amount of damage, or to destroy accounting records about missing money in the Pentagon budget (though I would like to know where that money went). That's all new (at least to me).

I certainly encourage you to pressure the govenment for better answers. I wish they would follow up with your questions too. I also wish you would take my questions seriously and follow up with those too. When you don't it really doesn't help the cause you are trying to promote.

This post has been edited by johndoeX: Mar 19 2007, 06:45 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 19 2007, 06:46 PM
Post #19



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,744
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



We do not speculate. What do you not get? We do not offer theory or point blame. Please read our website. Since you refuse to do your own research and come here with accusations and innuendos, your account is under mod review until you do your research and cease the accusations.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 19 2007, 06:49 PM
Post #20



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,744
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (hjw3001 @ Mar 19 2007, 06:36 PM)
I also wish you would take my questions seriously and follow up with those too. When you don't it really doesn't help the cause you are trying to promote.

Your questions are asking us to speculate. It seems you do not grasp the concept of that we do not speculate.

Either that or you have problems with your comprehension.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
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: 26th March 2019 - 10:50 AM