Part 2: What really happened ....11 september

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by TorontoTrader2, Jan 20, 2007.

  1. This is a Part 2 to the long thread. This thread will focus on the destruction of evidence of this crime.


    1. The official story is that 19 people who could barely fly single-engine planes, took control of 4 large airliners and on their first try flew perfect missions. They also apparently overpowered a total of 8 cockpit crew, who were never able to Swawk a hijack code in their transponders or fight them off.

    Fine. But why was the proof of this, the most important air traffic tapes ever, ERASED?
    If you go to the web site www.liveatc.net you can listen to any ATC tape - this is not rocket science.

    But who gave the order for those tapes -that would have proven the offical story - to be erased - and why was no one charged for this obvious crime.

    It would also who why, for the first time ever, that ATC controlers did not follow/ordered the standard hijack procedures not once by 4 times.

    "FAA Managers Destroyed 9/11 Tape
    Recording Contained Accounts of Communications With Hijacked Planes

    By Sara Kehaulani Goo
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Thursday, May 6, 2004; 6:16 PM "


    http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A6632-2004May6&notFound=true


    2. The steel from the WTCs. It was designd to withstand a hit from a Boeing 707 (the typical plane of that era). But here we have a low intensity jet fuel (kerosene) fire cause both to collapse on cue, one after another (remember, the official story said no bombs - this was just fire).

    Sure for the sake of our loved ones we should have saved the steel so that this kind of tragedy does not occur again with other sky scapers? Surely one of the most technologically advanced 1st world country would be able to analyse such a thing? does not make sense.


    3. The free-fall destrction of WTC 7. Not even FEMA or NIST can explain this destruction of evidence:

    http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j50/sophistrysophistry/SMALL_wtc-7_1_.gif


    4. Black Boxes from the planes, at least 2 of them crashed in typcial scenarios, black boxes are even recovered from the bottom of the ocean after a jet slams into it.
    But this evidence was destroyed/withheld. They would clearly prove the official story, if it were so.



    5. Just one of many. And the FBI too were ordered to not follow up the inteligence, to destroying their good work and evidence.

    "Ex-employee says FAA warned before 9/11"


    http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-11-23-whistle-blower-faa_x.htm



    6. The firefighters and clean up crew were threatened, and made to agree not to talk to anyone about this.
    Is this standard m.o. for a crime scene, to muzzle and threaten potential witnesses?

    And why was FEMA stationed there, the day before 9-11! Clearly this is an intelligence op, NOT a crime scene. No investigation was done. None. Zip.

    There is much more, I look forward to seeing other people expose these lies and murder.
     
  2. 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 shitty 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.
    http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2006/05/19/askthepilot186/

    It’s frequently claimed that the 9/11 attacks required more flying experience than the alleged hijackers possessed, and therefore they couldn’t have been controlling the planes. Giulio Bernacchia takes a different view, though, and as an experienced pilot (air force, then airline Captain), simulator instructor and examiner, it’s perhaps worth listening to what he has to say.

    http://www.911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf
     
  3. "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. "



    They are mis-informed. The way an autopilot works in part is to navigate between various beacon way-points. These waypoints are found in the FMC (flght management computer), and on approach plates (the paper maps of airports and surrounding area) that a pilot would keep on his knee board/clipboard.

    Secondly, the 757 like all modern aircraft has GPWS (ground proximity warning system) - there is no way an autopilot would let a flght get near the ground like that.

    Secondly, the pentagon is not a waypoint.

    The only way to do that flight was to hand fly the plane. Next to impossible to an amateur to hand fly a 757 for the first time let alone with that accuracy.

    They would have had to train on a 757 (or 767, same type rating) Simulator, category C or above for realism. Do you know how much that costs, and how few there are to use?

    What flap setting to use, when and how much to deploy the speedbrakes, anagle of attack to set, engine power settings? Keeping above the stall speed for each flap setting, but below the maximum speed for each flap setting.
    All while hand flying a large jet plane for the first time, to hit a precise spot on the ground coming from 30,000 feet in the air.

    And what became of the 8 pilots? Locked out of their cockpits even with pre 9-11 un-reinforced doors? Including former military men, subdued with little boxcutters? Tied up?

    Come on, their account is pure fantasy.


    And how were the names of all 19 alleged hijackers known within DAYS of the hit?

    Do you ever feel like a mushroom - kept in the dark and fed sh*t?


    p.s. I wrote that before I looked at that other link - http://www.911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf - which I am reading now.



    BUT I LOOK FORWARD TO SOMEONE EXPLAINING POINTS #1-5 THAT I POSTED. SURELY THE (ERASED) ATC TAPES WILL TELL US ALL...
     
  4. Sounds like you might be a pilot. Can you manually override GPW system and auotpilot by hand? I thought I read once before - not related to 9/11 - that just a little pressure on the wheel would override the system's attempt to correct.

    Why would one even need to use flaps, etc ,as you asked if they had no intention to land - if fact in their intention was to fly it straight into a building at as high a speed as they could so as to maximize the damage? Remove THAT technical burden and all one needs to do is keep it in the air for long enough. Shoot, I even flew a little 6 seater for about 15 minutes once - without ever even thought about it before - when the pilot asked if I wanted to. Granted, he already had it in the air and had the throttles and trim set, but it was pretty easy to keep 'er flying. Shoulda seen the looks on the 4 other guys' faces - PRICELESS !!!

    Pilots - I believe there are taped airphone calls from a stew where she states that the pilots were on the floor, bleeding or dead. So I guess they couldn't fight back after that. And why couldn't 5 guys overpower 2 pilots? 5 on 2 sounds like a no-lose situation to most, I believe...

    FBI - did they get the names from their boarding passes? I have no idea.

    Tapes - I read once, a few months ago about how the erased tape is a red herring - it had nothing to do with the flight. But I don't have a link for you to check out right now, so I'll refrain from claiming that at this point. I'll see if I can find it again and post if I can for you to read.
     
  5. Ok, so I'll put in my .02, even though I feel a little burned out on this. LOL....

    NIST states how the the fires weakened the steel after it had its' fireproofing removed when the planes hit. They go into different heat present from their tests. It wasn't low intensity. There have been instances of steel buildings failing from fire alone before - even when they had their insulation intact. Surely you can disagree with their analysis - but it should be based on facts and scientific analysis, not beliefs and incredulity.

    I don't know if they saved steel after NIST did their analysis or not. They DID have a lot to look at - something like 256 pieces, I believe. They did a LOT of analysis on how the steel reacted to the fire, etc. Not sure if that's what you're asking.

    But you're right, it would be nice to have saves some for the kinds of analysis that CTers are asking for. I believe they're asking for explosive residue analysis, correct?
     
  6. I believe NIST is working on it, let's wait and see what they have.
     
  7. Did you actually read the story? It goes into how aspecial team was able to sneak weapons aboard, etc. Nowhere does it EVER mention a specific time line, targets, or terrorists involved. All it does is show that it COULD happen. Not that it was GOING to happen.

    http://www.911myths.com/html/coleen_rowley.html

    The story...

    Coleen Rowley, chief attorney for the Minneapolis FBI office, described how the Bureau’s headquarters worked to "deliberately sabotage" the investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui, a suspected conspirator in the September 11th attack.

    Our take...

    Perhaps the most commonly quoted section of Rowleys letter is this:

    "Why would an FBI agent(s) deliberately sabotage a case? (I know I shouldn't be flippant about this, but jokes were actually made that the key FBIHQ personnel had to be spies or moles, like Robert Hansen, who were actually working for Osama bin Ladin to have so undercut Minneapolis' effort.)"

    The phrase "deliberately sabotage" has appeal for those who want to believe in a Government conspiracy, but if you keep reading it seems that's not Rowleys view at all:

    Continues on that link

    or read the memo here:

    http://www.apfn.org/apfn/WTC_whistleblower1.htm

    Julie Sirrs - she left the DIA in 1999, but Cters give the timeline as 2001.

    http://www.911myths.com/html/julie_sirrs.html

    Robert Wright - his investigations were also closed in 1999, but Cters give the year as 2001.

    http://www.911myths.com/html/robert_wright.html

    Lot's of bad info from the Cterz.....
     
  8. Can't find the link, but I believe ! fireman brought a lawsuit against Bush and was told to cool it. This is hardly a gag order on all firemen, police, ems workers, port authority po po.
     
  9. #10     Jan 20, 2007