The 9/11 Planes and the Pentagon attack

[darkbreed]

No, any logical brain can see the obvious connection and plan unfolding through centuries here. It is rather obvious if you actually look properly at it and every piece and evidence and how amazingl tis all orchestrated.

[darkbreed]

Oh and I might add, I say this as a freemason and member of several secret orders and societies, and this is all clearly masonic in its performance, as well as including other occult elements. I also have the local lodge and its grandmaster on my side on this. Obviously, those who did the above, are not real masons, but just tyrant b******* using what thy learned for selfish evil purposes.

[Wandering]

Actually, the fantasy lies in your house.

After all, I wasn't the person who'd claimed that a B-757 did not strike the Pentagon when ALL of the evidence proved beyond any doubt that the aircraft, which struck the Pentagon was a B-757. You made the claim that has since been proven with ties to fantasy.

That's a straight out lie mate I did not claim that a plane did not strike the pentagon and this shows how confused and twisted you are. That was Scott G and I even state in earlier posts you can review that I agreed with Q24s assertion that a plane did hit the towers. I even disagreed with Scott G on the points where he claims there was no plane. I think you should review your information and I'll ask you to edit this post accordingly as at no stage have I suggest the no plane theory has credence. I did say that I couldn't see a plane in the blurry frames of the pentagon video you provided. BoonY or Czero provided the final images that provided an identifiable plane.

You made the claim that has since been proven with ties to fantasy.

So I'll just get you to delete that. Thanks mate.

[Wandering]

I think sky's posts regarding the use of simulators was stated only as being a possibilty.

The ease of getting the information needed for the pilots to know the insides and outs of the mechanics of the plane is readily available via the web and simulators.

Do you discount the claim that there is a slight possibility terrorists may have used this to train as well?

The CIA, FBI and NIST had/have access to their personal computers and yet no evidence has come forth after 10 years that suggests the terrorists had access to simulators or manuals over the internet.

See what I did thar?

Edited January 25, 2012 by Wandering

[Babe Ruth]

And what of skyeagle's post regarding the countless hours of practice they could very well have had with simulators? If that was their primary mission, do you not think that they would have practiced with a simulator countless times?

Or does that not matter in your opinion? Entertaining the mere possibility of such a thing puts a real damper on your version of events, doesn't it?

It has not been claimed that they practiced that maneuver in a simulator. Their "official" flight records show all their training, as is normal, in small general aviation aircraft.

Further, if you were to go and get some time in a simulator, you would understand that this maneuver cannot be practiced in a simulator, for a variety of reasons.

Now, the maneuver itself--at the top--is not that difficult at all. It is the lower half and the last 20 seconds or so that is impossible. Sky mentions the high overhead "tac" approach that the military flies when ground fire is likely. But after that high overhead portion, ANY aircraft must be stabilized for the landing. The rate of descent must be reduced to about 600 FPM for a good landing.

Hani would have AVERAGED 3500 FPM for the entire maneuver, if we are to believe the official data. That is absurd, and even moreso considering that Hani had never in his life, not once, flown anything bigger than about 6000 pounds and 150 knots.

[Babe Ruth]

What is the big deal anyway? If the plane did not slam into the ground then leveling off and flying into the building shouldn't have been a problem. It would be akin to landing on a shallow glide slope to fly into such a building. Why is this said to be impossible when it seems quite straight forword?

Spoken like a true NON aviator. Would you care to state your flying experience?

[TSS]

Spoken like a true NON aviator. Would you care to state your flying experience?

Erm...you're the person who likes to give their ill informed opinion on a whole range of topics, from analysing heated metals by picture alone, fire fighting and subsequent damage, and demolition to name but a few...all whilst repeating that you have no intention of providing any evidence, or debating any of your claims..you just want to keep telling everyone what your opinion is. So why are you asking LS what his experience is?

[Babe Ruth]

Just a hunch, but it seems some posters are making quasi-authoritative statements regarding flight simulators for Boeings, when all they MIGHT have done is flown a desktop type of simulator.

Unless it is a top of the line Level E or Level D sim, they are not capable of realistic VFR flight, and Hani's maneuver was definitely a VFR maneuver. That stands for Visual Flight Rules.

One cannot simply go in and use a 757 simulator, and with the exception of Moussaoui, I don't think that has been claimed by the official story.

To do a tac approach to a landing takes a fair amount of training and expertise, as I'm sure Sky will attest to.

To claim that a rookie pilot with low skills could do that in an airplane he had never flown before is an absurd proposition.

[Babe Ruth]

Erm...you're the person who likes to give their ill informed opinion on a whole range of topics, from analysing heated metals by picture alone, fire fighting and subsequent damage, and demolition to name but a few...all whilst repeating that you have no intention of providing any evidence, or debating any of your claims..you just want to keep telling everyone what your opinion is. So why are you asking LS what his experience is?

Because LS claimed in a post that Hani's maneuver was NO BIG DEAL, posting as though he has considerable flying experience.

If he claimed that repairing a brain aneurysm was NO BIG DEAL, would YOU request a clarification of his skills and experience?

[TSS]

Because LS claimed in a post that Hani's maneuver was NO BIG DEAL, posting as though he has considerable flying experience.

If he claimed that repairing a brain aneurysm was NO BIG DEAL, would YOU request a clarification of his skills and experience?

You missed the point. You make unsubstantiated claims all the time, and refuse to debate or provide evidence for them...kind of makes you a hypocrite to then ask others for their experience doesn't it?

[Q24]

Hani Hanjour trained in a Boeing 737 simulator. There is evidence the hijackers had access to personal computer flight simulators. This was determined through flight school records and a credit card trail.

These facts sit fine with the false flag.

The real questions are, why did the CIA bin Laden unit not take action (indeed prevented the FBI from doing so) when aware of confirmed ‘Al Qaeda’ terrorists illegally inside the U.S. taking flight training thought to be in preparation for hijackings? Why did the 9/11 Commission and U.S. authorities later give a free pass to the Saudi intelligence agent who put two of the hijackers in touch with a U.S. flight school?

[Babe Ruth]

You missed the point. You make unsubstantiated claims all the time, and refuse to debate or provide evidence for them...kind of makes you a hypocrite to then ask others for their experience doesn't it?

You confuse a "link" with a substantiated claim. Such is the internet culture, I understand.

For example, I made what you would consider an unsubstantiated claime regarding molten metal pools at WTC because I did not provide a link, or any pictures, and such as that.

Well, Q rode to my rescue and provided pictures and videos, through the "back door" substantiating my statement. Thus my statements were accurate, but they did not contain a link or pictures.

So, in adult conversation, must one prove that today is January 25 by offering a link to a calendar? May one make the statement that today is January 25 WITHOUT offering a link or a picture of a calendar?

In the case of aviation matters, I've been in the aviation business since 1971. I do not offer false statements, and I am always happy to stand corrected when I make a mistake.

If LS thinks what Hani did was so damn easy, I'm just curious as to what sort of aviation experience he has. Or, is he simply another Monday Morning Quarterback?

[Babe Ruth]

Hani Hanjour trained in a Boeing 737 simulator. There is evidence the hijackers had access to personal computer flight simulators. This was determined through flight school records and a credit card trail.

These facts sit fine with the false flag.

The real questions are, why did the CIA bin Laden unit not take action (indeed prevented the FBI from doing so) when aware of confirmed ‘Al Qaeda’ terrorists illegally inside the U.S. taking flight training thought to be in preparation for hijackings? Why did the 9/11 Commission and U.S. authorities later give a free pass to the Saudi intelligence agent who put two of the hijackers in touch with a U.S. flight school?

Facts, or reports?

It would be interesting to know whose 737 sim Hani flew, but it changes nothing. Unless it was level D or Level E sim, there are precious few visual clues, and minimal accuracy to ground details. And I hate to be repetitious, but his was completely a visual maneuver, and simulators are oriented completely to instrument maneuvers.

I don't need any links, but it would be interesting to know whose sim it was.

[TSS]

You confuse a "link" with a substantiated claim. Such is the internet culture, I understand.

For example, I made what you would consider an unsubstantiated claime regarding molten metal pools at WTC because I did not provide a link, or any pictures, and such as that.

Well, Q rode to my rescue and provided pictures and videos, through the "back door" substantiating my statement. Thus my statements were accurate, but they did not contain a link or pictures.

So, in adult conversation, must one prove that today is January 25 by offering a link to a calendar? May one make the statement that today is January 25 WITHOUT offering a link or a picture of a calendar?

In the case of aviation matters, I've been in the aviation business since 1971. I do not offer false statements, and I am always happy to stand corrected when I make a mistake.

If LS thinks what Hani did was so damn easy, I'm just curious as to what sort of aviation experience he has. Or, is he simply another Monday Morning Quarterback?

The person who states he has no intention of debate, yet keeps on debating, no intention of providing evidence, but relies on others to substantiate their claims, wants to lecture me on 'adult conversation', that's an interesting perspective you have there. Strictly from a laymens point of view, i'm finding your awkward logic far more interesting then this alleged conspiracy, so thanks for that.

[Babe Ruth]

Happy to accomodate!

It wasn't really meant to be a lecture, but simply an answer to your earlier question to me.

Now, if LS will play along in this nondebate discussion/dialogue, I might find out if I can take his aviation related statements seriously.

[skyeagle409]

That's a straight out lie mate I did not claim that a plane did not strike the pentagon and this shows how confused and twisted you are.

Actually, that message was aimed at Babe Ruth.

[skyeagle409]

The CIA, FBI and NIST had/have access to their personal computers and yet no evidence has come forth after 10 years that suggests the terrorists had access to simulators or manuals over the internet.

On the contrary, it was well-known the terrorist were using simulators for training purposes.

The flight software that 'trains the terrorists'

Reports claim that one of the July 7 bombers obsessively used flight simulators to practise flying passenger planes.The ultra-realistic simulation software that Germaine Lindsay has been linked with - Microsoft Flight Simulator - is readily available in the shops and playable on any modern PC.It's not the first time the Microsoft "game" has been connected with terrorist training.

The perpetrators of the September 11 atrocities reportedly trained with flight simulators prior to the attacks.A British government report on the 2001 attacks said: "The operatives involved in the 11 September atrocities attended flight schools, used flight simulators to study the controls of larger aircraft and placed potential airports and routes under surveillance."Though the report did not mention the specific simulators used, many fingers pointed in the direction of Microsoft flight simulators.

Versions of the simulator at the time of the attacks included the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center and other New York landmarks. Microsoft reacted quickly by stating the software "could only help hone the skills of an already trained pilot". The Twin Towers were promptly removed from future versions of the software.

"We did decide, after some careful consideration, that we want to do the appropriate thing, the right thing, so we decided to remove the Towers [from the next version of Flight Simulator]," Microsoft spokesperson Matt Pilla said.

My link

Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz1kVoF5a2e

I decided to purchase the B-757 simulator online because the flight dynamics of the real aircraft was added in the simulation. I flew the same flight profile as American 77, and struck the Pentagon on the first try. It is more difficult flying that flight profile in the simulator than doing so in the real aircraft.

Edited January 25, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Babe Ruth]

Sky

I was gone for a few days, and might have missed your response regarding your opinion as to what might have caused those hotspots shown in the NASA thermal imaging photos?

[skyeagle409]

Sky

I was gone for a few days, and might have missed your response regarding your opinion as to what might have caused those hotspots shown in the NASA thermal imaging photos?

Definitely wasn't the result of explosives.

[Wandering]

Actually, that message was aimed at Babe Ruth.

Why is it a reply to my quote then?

[Babe Ruth]

Because he's confused?

[skyeagle409]

Why is it a reply to my quote then?

Oops!!

[skyeagle409]

Because he's confused?

Not as confused as the 9/11 conspiracy folks who have confused a light reflection as molten molten metal.

Edited January 26, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Babe Ruth]

We're all 911 conspiracy folks Sky, but some of us don't understand exactly who the conspirators were.

[skyeagle409]

We're all 911 conspiracy folks Sky, but some of us don't understand exactly who the conspirators were.

The 9/11 conspiracy folks do not deal in facts and evidence, as evident by the fact they have consistently misstepped themselves time after time.

Edited January 27, 2012 by skyeagle409