See other 9/11 Articles
Title: 9/11 for Dummies
Source:
N/A
URL Source: http://N/A
Published: Aug 1, 2010
Author: N/A
Post Date: 2010-08-01 09:57:39 by Eric Stratton
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 4402
Comments: 251
What I would suggest is to start a thread on the subject of 911 coincidences and explain in the header essay what you are looking for i.e., "coincidences" that are not arcane and that can be communicated simply to raw public.
Poster Comment: Per OI's suggestion, that is what I've undertaken. I have come to the conclusion that the final nails into the coffin of our Republic are being conducted with neocons holding the hammer, willfully and gleefully as our Republik more than slowly becomes a totalitarian state on steroids. I have also come to the unfortunate conclusion that it is primarily for lack of serious personal investigation, willful negligence and ignorance in essence, as the reasons why they believe the official Fairy Tale. They've never seriously looked into the matter, only superficially, and they've been driven by how their political "heroes" in the GOP have responded to the "twoofers;" Lameblow, Hammity, Palin, Junior, Cheney, etc., etc. Granted, now Hussein is in office and they are blaming his cadre of people for merely continuing on in the BuchCo. legacy, but nevertheless, it is driven primarily by support for "national security," which we all here realize is really "federal government and NWO elite security," and which is all spun off of this notion that there are terrorists lurking around every street corner waiting to blow us all up when if that were even remotely true it'd have been done a thousand times already since 9/11. Instead, it's only happened a statistically insignificant number of times. It's clear that they're never going to spend as much time researching this as we all do here. After all, they have socials and far more important things to attend to and investments to take care of so that they can all retire when they're 50-years old and play golf five days a week until they die and therefore cannot be inconvenienced to actually consider why they may be lucky to have a set of clubs in five years and access to a course. So what I thought I would do is attempt to piece together a list of between 20 and 50 items that can be read within say a half-hour and that when considered individually really give cause for people to wonder about it all. 9/11 that is. But that when taken collectively, make them only ask "how can that all be if the Fairy Tale is actually true?" Obviously no one can force another to look, but what can be done is to make the top 20-50 points very easy to access and point out and ingest within a short period of time. This should be a "Reader's Digest" Short-list version if you will. Do I think that this is going to be the difference? No. I think that our Republic is toast in a major way regardless with much pain and suffering on the immediate horizon. But I also think that there's a very small window, and ever diminishing one, wherein which if all goes perfectly, perhaps there is at least a degree of hope, and God willing. If anyone has seen exactly this, please post the link. I have not. I have seen numerous lists that have many items, often "arcane" ones as OI states above. I know that there are also thousands of data points as well, hence the effort. If these points have blatant video evidence or irrefutable eye witness testimony from indisputable sources it would be good. Otherwise, simple logical "impossibilities" are also good. They should include the points that are the "biggest bang for the buck." I also know that many "financial coincidences" also fit the bill. I thought we could brainstorm this together. I will keep a "top-50" list, and anyone else can feel free to do the same obviously. But I thought a concentrated thread wherein only such data points are included and discussion related to them. It would be good to limit the thread to only that to avoid unnecessary clutter in a thread that will probably end up being quite large. Thoughts? Already been done? (Where?)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 245.
#6. To: Eric Stratton (#0)
Oh no.... not another TWOOFER_FAERIE™ thread!
Arguing with them is like playing "Whack A Mole." Hit them on one point in one place, they pop up out of another hole in another place. Still want to know why
what we really want to know is what is on all those videos from around the pentagon that were confiscated, what is the liar movement trying to hide?
@45 ... there is LIVE footage showing thousands of Pentagon workers looking at the disaster.
Where are the videos of the approach and the impact? Oh, and what evidence is there that Hani Hanjour flew that aircraft?
?
Oh, and what evidence is there that Hani Hanjour flew that aircraft? ? DO you know of any evidence indicating Hani Hanjour was onboard that aircraft, and that he took control of the plane and flew it from Ohio to Washington DC?
Yes.
You: Yes. Post it then, with a credible source. By evidence, I mean something like proof that he checked in, or perhaps even bought a ticket for the flight.
By evidence, I mean something like proof that he checked in, or perhaps even bought a ticket for the flight. Sure. Here is the link to FLT77's official passenger list. You can click on it.
Well lookie here, the original news reports stated that Hanjour didn't show up on the flight manifest since he might not have had a ticket.... From The Washington Post
But, I already told you in an earlier post: I don't care about the Washington Post article, often newspapers reports are based on misinterpretation.
I don't care about the Washington Post article, often newspapers reports are based on misinterpretation. And I don't care what some character called buckeroo has to say, I find the Washington Post more credible than you and your government handlers.
? Here is another pdf of Hanjour (based on the FBI)... eat your heart. By the way, Hanjour's helpers were one way or another indicted; many of whom admitted GUILTY.
Talk about a perfect yet obvious setup. If a real person had done what Hanjour is said to have done, he at least would have done one or both of two things; 1) Left a note or a video informing the world of what he did and why he did it. The "box cutters" and the "four color diagrams of a 757 instrument panel" are just a bit much. In reality, he would have either made it difficult for law enforcment to find out who he was, OR announced that he was in fact the hijacker, and would have explained why he and his pals did it. Is this document authentic, or was it provided by a writer?
Per Rule #19 of "25 Rules of Disinformation."
That's all you do here is wave your arms and repeat the same crap over and over again. I WAS considering whatever "evidence" there is out there, and so far it doesn't look like the Hani Hanjour in the color photo is the same person as the "Hani Hanjour" at Dulles International Airport. There IS no record of him actually boarding the plane is there. And the Washington Post obviously DID see a different manifest than what is out there on the Internet, since Hanjour's name wasn't on it.
My postings - and buck's even more so - have specific facts backed by hundreds of pages of specific documentation. Yours have allegations and attempts to pick apart minutiae of the postings either of us cites, which eventually can be summarized as "I don't want to believe that, this is how it should have or did happen because that's what appeals to me."
Your "facts" many times are NOT facts, simply allegations, along with a highly flawed account of why and how the attacks the took place, oftentimes based upon improbabilities and impossible events.. Hanjour could not fly a simple propeller powered airplane. He never flew a jet aircraft. Yet you want people to believe he defeated the laws of aerodynamics by flying a Boeing 757 jumbo feet 20 feet off the ground at 530 mph. You must think people are pretty stupid.
It's quite a telling indicator of desparation to keep selectively quoting the same people who explicitly say he was more than qualified to be a hijacker not interested in surviving. I understand that's all you have left. And he didn't have to. He flew simulators which according to the FAA are valid substitutes and allow you to become fully prepared for a type certification check ride. You don't know jack $hit about the laws of aerodynamics and you never have demonstrated knowledge of even one detail. It has been me who introduced the concept of ground effect on these threads, and you have misinterpreted that concept into oblivion without understanding it in the least. I have repeately told you it is possible to figure out what a passenger aircraft can and can't do by using a simulator to test maneuvers. The response from you has been (((((crickets)))). Nothing. You're full of it and fighting a rear guard retreat as you get debunked on one item "Hanjour was never licensed ever" to another "Hanjour's 1/2 G turn 46 fps descent was a fighter pilot maneuver." Pathetic and attempting to save face after demonstrating you know nothing, and can not support any explanation that's coherent.
You, the widely known shill and forum bloviator, knows more than an aeronautical engineer and airline pilot according to you, yet you think ground effect is what makes airplanes fly, or at least that's the impression you give. Here's that article again, since you obviously ignored it the last 10 times I posted it to you... From The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training Nila Sagadevan is an aeronautical engineer and a qualified pilot of heavy aircraft. [Mindfully.org note: Specifications for Boeing 757 and Cessna 172 are from Wikipedia. See other drawing below] There are some who maintain that the mythical 9/11 hijackers, although proven to be too incompetent to fly a little Cessna 172, had acquired the impressive skills that enabled them to fly airliners by training in flight simulators. What follows is an attempt to bury this myth once and for all, because I've heard this ludicrous explanation bandied about, at nauseam, on the Internet and the TV networks" "invariably by people who know nothing substantive about flight simulators, flying, or even airplanes. A common misconception non-pilots have about simulators is how "easy" it is to operate them. They are indeed relatively easy to operate if the objective is to make a few lazy turns and frolic about in the "open sky". But if the intent is to execute any kind of a maneuver with even the least bit of precision, the task immediately becomes quite daunting. And if the aim is to navigate to a specific geographic location hundreds of miles away while flying at over 500 MPH, 30,000 feet above the ground the challenges become virtually impossible for an untrained pilot. And this, precisely, is what the four hijacker pilots who could not fly a Cessna around an airport are alleged to have accomplished in multi-ton, high-speed commercial jets on 9/11. For a person not conversant with the practical complexities of pilotage, a modern flight simulator could present a terribly confusing and disorienting experience. These complex training devices are not even remotely similar to the video games one sees in amusement arcades, or even the software versions available for home computers. In order to operate a modern flight simulator with any level of skill, one has to not only be a decent pilot to begin with, but also a skilled instrument-rated one to boot and be thoroughly familiar with the actual aircraft type the simulator represents, since the cockpit layouts vary between aircraft. The only flight domains where an arcade / PC-type game would even begin to approach the degree of visual realism of a modern professional flight simulator would be during the take-off and landing phases. During these phases, of course, one clearly sees the bright runway lights stretched out ahead, and even peripherally sees images of buildings, etc. moving past. Take-offs "even landings, to a certain degree" are relatively "easy" because the pilot has visual reference cues that exist "outside" the cockpit. But once you've rotated, climbed out, and reached cruising altitude in a simulator (or real airplane), and find yourself en route to some distant destination (using sophisticated electronic navigation techniques), the situation changes drastically: the pilot loses virtually all external visual reference cues. She / he is left entirely at the mercy of an array of complex flight and navigation instruments to provide situational cues (altitude, heading, speed, attitude, etc.) In the case of a Boeing 757 or 767, the pilot would be faced with an EFIS (Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) panel comprised of six large multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of assorted "hard" instruments. These displays process the raw aircraft system and flight data into an integrated picture of the aircraft situation, position and progress, not only in horizontal and vertical dimensions, but also with regard to time and speed as well. When flying "blind", i.e., with no ground reference cues, it takes a highly skilled pilot to interpret, and then apply, this data intelligently. If one cannot translate this information quickly, precisely and accurately (and it takes an instrument-rated pilot to do so), one would have ZERO SITUATIONAL AWARENESS. I.e., the pilot wouldn't have a clue where she / he was in relation to the earth. Flight under such conditions is referred to as "IFR", or Instrument Flight Rules. And IFR Rule #1: Never take your eyes off your instruments, because that's all you have! The corollary to Rule #1: If you can't read the instruments in a quick, smooth, disciplined, scan, you are as good as dead. Accident records from around the world are replete with reports of any number of good pilots "i.e., professional instrument-rated pilots " who ‘bought the farm' because they screwed up while flying in IFR conditions. Let me place this in the context of the 9/11 hijacker-pilots. These men were repeatedly deemed incompetent to solo a simple “Cessna-172”, an elementary exercise that involves flying this little trainer once around the patch on a sunny day. A student's first solo flight involves a simple circuit: take-off, followed by four gentle left turns ending with a landing back on the runway. This is as basic as flying can possibly get. Not one of the hijackers was deemed fit to perform this most elementary exercise by himself, in fact, here is what their flight instructors had to say about the aptitude of these budding aviators: Now let's take a look at American Airlines Flight 77. Passenger / hijacker Hani Hanjour rises from his seat midway through the flight, viciously fights his way into the cockpit with his cohorts, overpowers Captain Charles F. Burlingame and First Officer David Charlebois, and somehow manages to toss them out of the cockpit (for starters, very difficult to achieve in a cramped environment without inadvertently impacting the yoke and thereby disengaging the autopilot). One would correctly presume that this would present considerable difficulties to a little guy with a “box cutter". Burlingame was a tough, burly, ex-Vietnam F4 fighter jock, who had flown over 100 combat missions. Every pilot who knows him says that rather than politely hand over the controls, Burlingame would have instantly rolled the plane on its back so that Hanjour would have broken his neck when he hit the floor. But let's ignore this almost natural reaction expected of a fighter pilot and proceed with this charade. Nonetheless, imagine that Hanjour overpowers the flight deck crew, removes them from the cockpit and takes his position in the captain's seat. Although weather reports state this was not the case, let's say Hanjour was lucky enough to experience a perfect CAVU day (Ceiling And Visibility Unlimited). If Hanjour looked straight ahead through the windshield, or off to his left at the ground, at best he would see, 35,000 feet - - 7 miles - - below him, a murky brownish-gray-green landscape, virtually devoid of surface detail, while the aircraft he was now piloting was moving along, almost imperceptibly and in eerie silence, at around 500 MPH (about 750 feet every second). In a real-world scenario (and given the reported weather conditions that day), he would likely have seen clouds below him completely obscuring the ground he was traversing. With this kind of "situational non-awareness", Hanjour might as well have been flying over Argentina, Russia, or Japan he wouldn't have had a clue as to where, precisely, he was. After a few seconds (at 750 feet per second), Hanjour would figure out there's little point in looking outside - there is nothing there to give him any real visual cues. For a man who had previously wrestled with little Cessnas, following freeways and railroad tracks (and always in the comforting presence of an instructor), this would have been a strange, eerily unsettling environment indeed. Seeing nothing outside, Mr. Hanjour would be forced to divert his attention to his instrument panel, where he would be faced with a bewildering array of instruments. He would then have to very quickly interpret his heading, ground track, altitude, and airspeed information on the displays before he could even figure out where in the world he was, much less where the Pentagon was located in relation to his position! After all, before he can crash into a target, he has to first find the target. It is very difficult to explain this scenario, of an utter lack of ground reference, to non-pilots; but let it suffice to say that for these incompetent hijacker non-pilots to even consider grappling with such a daunting task would have been utterly overwhelming. They wouldn't have known where to begin. But, for the sake of discussion let's stretch things beyond all plausibility and say that Hanjour - whose flight instructor claimed "couldn't fly at all" - somehow managed to figure out their exact position on the American landscape in relation to their intended target as they traversed the earth at a speed five times faster than they had ever flown by themselves before. Once he had determined exactly where he was, he would need to figure out where the Pentagon was located in relation to his rapidly changing position. He would then need to plot a course to his target (one he cannot see with his eyes - remember, our ace is flying solely on instruments). In order to perform this bit of electronic navigation, he would have to be very familiar with IFR procedures. None of these chaps even knew what a navigational chart looked like, much less how to plug information into flight management computers (FMC) and engage LNAV (lateral navigation automated mode). If one is to believe the official story, all of this was supposedly accomplished by raw student pilots, while flying blind at 500 MPH, (about 750 feet every second) over 30,000 feet high and above the unfamiliar ground, (and practically invisible) terrain, using complex methodologies and employing sophisticated instruments. To get around this little problem, the official storyline suggests these men manually flew their aircraft to their respective targets (NB: This still wouldn't relieve them of the burden of navigation). But let's assume Hanjour disengaged the autopilot and auto-throttle and hand-flew the aircraft to its intended - and invisible - target on instruments alone until such time as he could get a visual fix. This would have necessitated him to fly back across West Virginia and Virginia to Washington DC. - - This portion of the Flight 77's flight path cannot be corroborated by any radar evidence that exists, because the aircraft is said to have suddenly disappeared from radar screens over Ohio, but let's not mull over that little point. - - According to FAA radar controllers, "Flight 77" then suddenly pops up over Washington DC and executes an incredibly precise diving turn at a rate of 360 degrees per minute while descending at 3,500 feet per minute, at the end of which "Hanjour" allegedly levels out at ground level. Oh, I almost forgot: He also had the presence of mind to turn off the transponder in the middle of this incredibly difficult maneuver, - - one of his instructors later commented the hapless fellow couldn't have spelt the word if his life depended on it. - - The maneuver was in fact so precisely executed that the air traffic controllers at Dulles refused to believe the blip on their screen was a commercial airliner. Danielle O'Brian, one of the air traffic controllers at Dulles who reported seeing the aircraft at 9:25 said, "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane." And then, all of a sudden we have magic. Voila! Hanjour finds the Pentagon sitting squarely in his sights right before him. But even that wasn't good enough for this fanatic Muslim kamikaze pilot. You see, he found that his "missile" was heading towards one of the most densely populated wings of the Pentagon - and one occupied by top military brass, including the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld. Presumably in order to save these men's lives, he then executes a sweeping 270-degree turn and approaches the building from the opposite direction and aligns himself with the only wing of the Pentagon that was virtually uninhabited due to extensive renovations that were underway - -, there were some 120 civilians construction workers in that wing who were killed; their work included blast-proofing the outside wall of that wing. - - I shan't get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH. A discussion on ground effect energy, tip vortex compression, downwash sheet reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the scope of this article (the 100,000-lb jetblast alone would have blown whole semi-trucks off the roads.) Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000 pounds airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH. The author, a pilot and aeronautical engineer, challenges any pilot in the world to do so in any large high-speed aircraft that has a relatively low wing-loading (such as a commercial jets), i.e., to fly the craft at 400 MPH, 20 feet above ground in a flat trajectory over a distance of one mile. Why the stipulation of 20 feet and a mile? There were several street light poles located up to a mile away from the Pentagon that were snapped-off by the incoming aircraft; this suggests a low, flat trajectory during the final pre-impact approach phase. Further, it is known that the craft impacted the Pentagon's ground floor. For purposes of reference: If a 757 were placed on the ground on its engine nacelles (I.e., gear retracted as in flight profile), its nose would be almost 20 above the ground! Ergo, for the aircraft to impact the ground floor of the Pentagon, Hanjour would have needed to have flown in with the engines buried 10-feet deep in the Pentagon lawn. Some pilot. At any rate, why is such ultra-low-level flight aerodynamically impossible? Because the reactive force of the hugely powerful downwash sheet, coupled with the compressibility effects of the tip vortices, simply will not allow the aircraft to get any lower to the ground than approximately one half the distance of its wingspan - until speed is drastically reduced, which, of course, is what happens during normal landings. In other words, if this were a Boeing 757 as reported, the plane could not have been flown below about 60 feet above ground at 400 MPH. (Such a maneuver is entirely within the performance envelope of aircraft with high wing-loadings, such as ground-attack fighters, the B1-B bomber, and Cruise missiles - and the Global Hawk.) The very same navigational challenges mentioned above would have faced the pilots who flew the two 767s into the Twin Towers, in that they, too, would have had to have first found their targets. Again, these chaps, too, miraculously found themselves spot on course. And again, their "final approach" maneuvers at over 500 MPH are simply far too incredible to have been executed by pilots who could not solo basic training aircraft. Conclusion In reality, a clueless non-pilot would encounter almost insurmountable difficulties in attempting to navigate and fly a 200,000 pounds airliner into a building located on the ground, 7 miles below and hundreds of miles away and out of sight, and in an unknown direction, while flying at over 500 MPH - and all this under extremely stressful circumstances. About the Author: Nila Sagadevan was born in Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) and educated in Britain. A former commercial pilot, he holds a degree in aeronautical engineering from the University of Edinburgh and works as a communications consultant. He lives with his wife and son in Laguna Hills, CA. and may be reached at nila@omnicomltd.com source: http://www.venusproject.com/ethics_in_action/911_Impossible_Flying_757.html 13jun2006 scaled drawing from Boeing website simplified by Mindfully.org 14jun2006 STRONGLY SUGGESTED !
From The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training NILA SAGADEVAN / Earth's Common Sense Think Tank 13jun2006 As ususal you lie without batting an eye. I have repeatedly told you that the foreigner's email does not work because I got a bounce back. Get me a real expert who is American and has current valid aviation status. Not a fly by night hack who can't stick around to answer legitimate questions and challenges. You keep flogging these k00ksite POS's whose blatherings get passed around long after their perps disappear in their hit and runs.
There are no replies to Comment # 245. End Trace Mode for Comment # 245.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest"how can that all be if the Fairy Tale is actually true?"
#13. To: buckeroo (#6)
(Edited)
Oh no.... not another TWOOFER_FAERIE™ thread!
(1) A 1/2 G turn is supposed to be evidence of "fighter pilot skills" when student pilots must do 2G turns to get licensed and fighter pilots regularly pull 8+ G's,
Nyuk, nyuk.
(2) Descending at 46.667 feet per second or 31.818 miles per hour is supposed to be evidence of "fighter pilot skills," when you descend faster than that on a roller coaster,
(3) How an aircraft controller trying to track a plane with its transponder off, and which completely disappears from the radar screen half way through its descending turn, is able to accurately describe the completed turn as a "precision turn" when the ATC doesn't even see the last half of the turn
#130. To: AGAviator (#13)
(Edited)
#132. To: IRTorqued (#130)
what we really want to know is what is on the video from around the pentagon that was confiscated, what is the liar movement trying to hide?
#134. To: buckeroo, IRTorqued (#132)
@45 ... there is LIVE footage showing thousands of Pentagon workers looking at the disaster.
#135. To: FormerLurker (#134)
Oh, and what evidence is there that Hani Hanjour flew that aircraft?
#138. To: buckeroo (#135)
#200. To: FormerLurker, AGAviator (#138)
DO you know of any evidence indicating Hani Hanjour was onboard that aircraft [AAFLT77, flight from IAD to LAX (pushed back from Gate D26 at 08:09 AM and took off from Runway 30 at Dulles at 08:20 AM) on Tuesday September 11, 2001], and that he took control of the plane and flew it from Ohio to Washington DC?
#203. To: buckeroo, AGaviator, ALL (#200)
Me: DO you know of any evidence indicating Hani Hanjour was onboard that aircraft, and that he took control of the plane and flew it from Ohio to Washington DC?
#205. To: FormerLurker (#203)
(Edited)
Post it then, with a credible source.
#211. To: buckeroo, AGAviator, Original_Intent, All (#205)
Hani Hanjour
Obtained a commercial pilot's license in April 1999 from the Federal Aviation Administration. The license expired six months later because he failed to complete a required medical exam. In 1996, he received flight training for a few months at a private school in Scottsdale, Ariz., but did not finish the course because his instructors thought he was not proficient enough. He listed his address as a post office box in Taife, Saudi Arabia, but he also has been linked to addresses in San Diego and Hollywood, Fla. His name was not on the American Airlines manifest for the flight because he may not have had a ticket.
#212. To: FormerLurker (#211)
Hanjour presented his Virginia driver's license when he purchased his plane ticket on August 31 from a New Jersey travel agent.
#214. To: buckeroo (#212)
Hanjour presented his Virginia driver's license when he purchased his plane ticket on August 31 from a New Jersey travel agent.
#216. To: FormerLurker, AGAviator (#214)
I find the Washington Post more credible than you and your government handlers.
#217. To: buckeroo, ALL (#216)
XV. SEARCH EVIDENCE
At approximately 3:45 PM, on 09/12/01, WFO was notified by the Dulles Airport police
that a suspicious vehicle was found at Dulles International Airport (IAD), Hourly Lot, Row G,
Dulles, Virginia. A vehicle record check determined that the vehicle was registered to NAWAF
AL-HAZMI, of 8451 Mount Vernon Avenue, Lemon Grove, California, 91945. A search
warrant was approved for the 1988 4-door blue Toyota Corolla, CA 3JFZ283, VIN
#JT2AE92E9J313137546. Items seized include the following:
1) An hourly parking ticket dated and stamped 09/11/01 7:25 AM
2) Four (4) color diagrams of an instrument panel for a B757 aircraft
3) One yellow and black utility knife (box cutter)
4) One Pan Am International Flight Academy, Jet Tech International, Phoenix, AZ,
identification card in the name of HANI HANJOUR
5) A cashier's check to the Flight Academy in the amount of $5745 from HANJOUR.
6) A travel itinerary for seats 13 A and 13B for KHALID AL-MIHDHAR and MAJED
MOQED on AA Flight 77
Law Enforcement Sensitive
JICI 04/19/02 FBI03116
Law Enforcement Sensitive.
7) A piece of paper with the name "Osama 5895316"
8) Packing slip of package sent by Rawf Al Dog, 1565 Washington Boulevard, #8, Laurel,
Maryland through Mail Boxes, Etc. via U.S. Mail Express, to the United Arab Emirates
'_. on 09/10/01 at 6:57 AM
9) . • A checkbook with partially written checks with an account name of NAWAF AL
HAZMI, 96 Linwood Plaza, #417, Fort Lee, NJ, from Hudson United Bank, Levittown,
PA, account#3980999775
10) One Maryland Motor Vehicle receipt for new identification card #H526298757675, dated
09/5/01 at 12:17 PM, with a handwritten address on the back of "505, 14800 4th Street,
Laurel, Maryland, 20707"
11) ATM receipt from First Union Bank of a deposit to account #1010042788049 for
$120.00 on 09/10/01.
2) Not have left every single piece of evidence in the car he left, sitting in the parking garage at the airport he would never return to. He may as well just have painted his car with big red letters "I AM THE HIJACKER.
#228. To: FormerLurker, buckeroo, turtle (#217)
Talk about a perfect yet obvious setup.
If a real person had done what Hanjour is said to have done,
More arm-waving by someone who doesn't wish to consider factual evidence that overthrows preconceived conclusions. What would the problem of deferring all PR announcements to Osama Bin Laden, who would be far better prepared to give them, instead of trying to commander the media communication by himself?
1) Left a note or a video
2) Not have left every single piece of evidence in the car he left
The "box cutters" and the "four color diagrams of a 757 instrument panel" are just a bit much.
In reality, he would have either made it difficult for law enforcment to find out who he was, OR announced that he was in fact the hijacker
Is this document authentic, or was it provided by a writer? 19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
#232. To: AGAviator (#228)
More arm-waving by someone who doesn't wish to consider factual evidence that overthrows preconceived conclusions.
#234. To: FormerLurker, buckeroo (#232)
That's all you do here is wave your arms and repeat the same crap over and over again.
#236. To: AGAviator (#234)
My postings - and buck's even more so - have specific facts backed by hundreds of pages of specific documentation.
#237. To: FormerLurker (#236)
Hanjour could not fly a simple propeller powered airplane. Hanjour got a license for a single engine airplane and a multi engine airplane. You choose to cherry pick statements by the same people who explicitly said Hanjour was completely capable of flying an aircraft from Point A to Point B then crashing the plane into Point B.
He never flew a jet aircraft.
Yet you want people to believe he defeated the laws of aerodynamics by flying a Boeing 757 jumbo feet 20 feet off the ground at 530 mph.
#241. To: AGAviator (#237)
You don't know jack $hit about the laws of aerodynamics and you never have demonstrated knowledge of even one detail.
The Impossibility of
Flying Heavy Aircraft
Without Training NILA SAGADEVAN / Earth's Common Sense Think Tank 13jun2006
The writers of the official storyline expect us to believe, that once the flight deck crews had been overpowered, using “box cutters" and the hijackers "took control" of the various aircraft, their intended targets suddenly popped up in their windshields as they would have in some arcade game, and all that these fellows would have had to do was simply aim their airplanes at the buildings and fly into them. Most people who have been exposed only to the official storyline have never been on the flight deck of an airliner at altitude and looked at the outside world; if they had, they would realize the absurdity of this kind of reasoning. 
Text and link to MP3 audio of David Ray Griffin speaking on the collapse of the World Trade
Center at the Grand Lake Theater in Oakland, California on Thursday, 30 March 2006.
#245. To: FormerLurker, buckeroo (#241)
Here's that article again, since you obviously ignored it the last 10 times I posted it to you...
Replies to Comment # 245.