Alan Sabrosky, US Marine Corps veteran says Israel did 911

No evidence of that bullshit

 

Translation: What you don't like to hear you ignore.

In December 2001, veteran German intelligence professionals said that 9/11 had been executed by a state-sponsored criminal network and had required years of planning. Eckehardt Werthebach, the former president of Germany's domestic intelligence service, Verfassungsschutz, said that "the deathly precision" and "the magnitude of planning" of the attacks would have required "years of planning." Such a sophisticated operation, Werthebach said, would require the "fixed frame" of a state intelligence organization, something not found in a "loose group" like the one allegedly led by Mohammed Atta while he studied in Hamburg - Christopher Bollyn.

Bollyn shows Israel's fingerprints are all over the place:

The Israeli military and intelligence agency have long had the capability to convert and
disguise large-body aircraft in the United States, and their companies that do this kind
of work are connected to ICTS, the Israeli airport security company that is a prime
suspect in the "false flag" terrorism.

The Israeli military has spawned several aircraft leasing and maintenance companies in
the United States since the late 1960s. There is, in fact, a network of Israeli-controlled
aviation companies operating in the United States which were all started by Israel
Aircraft Industries (IAI), now known as Israel Aerospace Industries. Israel Aircraft
Industries is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Israeli Defense Ministry, which produces
and maintains planes and missiles.

One of the Israeli military's aviation companies spawned in the United States is or was
an aircraft leasing company named ATASCO, which began operating in the United
States in the early 1970s.

International Consultants on Targeted Security (ICTS) International, N.V. is the Mossad-
run company that owns Huntleigh USA, the airline security company that oversaw the
passenger screening operation at Boston and Newark airports on 9/11.

Also, former Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky wrote that Mossad played a role in the 1988 Pan Am Lockerbie bombing.

 

My post doesn't need a translation thank you. Your post was irrelevant and reading it gives me no like or dislike emotion. The one above is equally irrelevant.

We keep hearing this crap about a "sophisticated" operation. The hijackers got on 4 planes at roughly the same time and hijacked them. Crashing them into big targets was the easy part.

 

You are very well informed, thanks for posting pertinent details.

 

Didn't you already research any of this irrelevant hogwash before wading in? I suppose a lack of a link didn't help, made it look like he came up with it all by himself instead of a big cut and paste.

 

Nonsense. It is totally relevant.

What about actually flying them to the vicinity? When the likes of Hani Hanjour could not even fly a light plane like tie Cessna 172.

 

Nonsense it has zero bearing on anything related to the activities on 911.

Sheesh, 20 years and you still haven't found a simple explanation for this garbage?

 

How come you didn't see where I wrote the name 'Christopher Bollyn' and also used ' : ' to indicate the text following that was written by him?

 

How come you didn't show common courtesy and put a link in to where you got the content from!? MY comment was aimed at someone pointing out how "well informed" you are, who has clearly NOT seen what you pointed put. Had you put a link in, as you should have done, even they would probably have twigged. Also, how come you didn't quote me in full, thus providing proper context!?

1. How come you haven't looked online for the truly simple explanation for Hanjour's "skills"?
2. How come you didn't answer this - I quoted you, bolded it and used a question mark. How come you "didn't see" this?

I was going to go through all the numerous posts you "didn't see" but I suddenly realized that you won't reply to them anyway.

 

Children can do this - auto pilot to get to Washington and use landmarks to get bearings:

 

It is a well-documented fact that Israel has conducted terrorist attacks against its British and American benefactors. Now does this prove that Israel was somehow involved in 9/11? No it does not. But it does prove propensity.

And that is why it is totally relevant.

 

Because there wasn't such a link. The quoted text is from a book not a web page. I gave the author's name which should've been sufficient.

If you're going to insinuate I made stuff up then you shouldn't be surprised by that.

Proper context? It's not as if it's difficult to follow.

That's just plain silly. I'm already more than familiar with the OCT's explanation of the incident.

I don't get time to respond to everything. If you got a problem with that then, tough.

 

What, children hopping into such an aircraft and flying it in full control? Oh my, the things you choose to believe in order to defend the OCT.

And what is that narrator's experience in aviation? Or is he just a computer gamer?

Here, listen to someone who actually knows what he's talking about, i.e. an experienced pilot:

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 by themselves 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, and 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 s/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’re 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 ‘lost it’ 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.

[...]

Hani Hanjour: “His English was horrible, and his mechanical skills were even worse. It was like he had hardly even ever driven a car. I’m still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all.”


[...]

Imagine that Hanjour overpowers the flight deck crew, removes them from the cockpit and takes his position in the captain’s seat. The weather reports say it was fairly clear, so let’s say Hanjour experienced 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-grey-green landscape, virtually devoid of any significant 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, 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 ft/sec), Hanjour would figure out there’s little point in looking outside—there’s 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’d be faced with a bewildering array of instruments — nothing like he had seen in a Cessna 172. 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.



more here:

https://veteranstoday.com/2021/05/1...ty-of-flying-heavy-aircraft-without-training/


Many other pilots have said the same: you cannot fly and navigate a large modern aircraft without proper training!

 

My god, what an absurd claim, no it does not!

Really atrocious circular reasoning!

 

So you just manually typed it all!?
Full text of "Solving 9-11: The Deception That Changed The World" (archive.org)

Another absurd statement, did the words "cut and paste" confuse you?

Where are you taking this stupid thread? You specifically left out the phrase concerning a link, robbing the quote of context!

Hmmm, well I'm sure you believe that, but running away from a debate when you can't answer simple requests is not impressive.

 

And again, deliberately taking my quote out of context! Children can do this on a flight simulator! It's easy, point the plane at your target and crash it.

Is that relevant then? He hasn't flown a 757 before!

Knows what they are talking about? Well he took one already cherry-picked quote about one pilot on a Cessna and applied it to all of them! Doesn't bode well for impartial. I suspect straight out the gate that this guy is a conspiracy theorist!

Strawman.

Or set a simple heading on the auto-pilot, drag the plane around in a dead simple 360 descent and nose down crash the damn thing!

Luckily there was not such intent. Hit a massive target with an object that naturally helps you to crash.

Wowie, that's a whole lot of deliberate conflating going on there! But at least you put the link up for this 20yr old conspiracy junk!

Not the "many other pilots" card! BIG FAT STRAWMAN! It's the conspiracy crap that says they didn't have proper training and they weren't "flying" the plane. The difficult bits are take-off and landing. Keeping it at altitude, pointing it towards Washington on auto-pilot, not so much.
The utter garbage above about not knowing where they were! A scheduled flight, known flight path, known speed at altitude and let's presume they looked at their watches! It's once again this implied bullshit presumption that they can't be smart enough to do simple calculations because they "live in caves"?

Do you know what cherry picking is? It's what conspiracy theorists do quite skilfully! The data about Hanjour and the Cessna comes mainly from Marcel Bernard. Did you read the other quote he made? I wonder why team 911-truf leave it out!
Freeway Airport thrust into spotlight amid terrorist investigation (archive.org)
“There’s no doubt in my mind that once [Flight 77] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it.” - Marcel Bernard

 

More on this 20yrs dead crap:

Flight School Dropouts - 911myths
"Flight School Dropouts
One question frequently raised about the 9/11 attacks is whether the alleged pilots, particularly (although not only) Hani Hanjour, had the skills to carry out their tasks. Nila Sagadevan uses the following quotes by way of illustration. 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:
Mohammed Atta: "His attention span was zero."
Khalid Al-Mihdhar: "We didn't kick him out, but he didn't live up to our standards."
Marwan Al-Shehhi: "He was dropped because of his limited English and incompetence at the controls."
Salem Al-Hazmi: "We advised him to quit after two lessons."
Hani Hanjour: "His English was horrible, and his mechanical skills were even worse. It was like he had hardly even ever driven a car. I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all."

http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php?storyid=5115


Looks like a compelling case, right? But as usual, it pays to find out more about where these quotes have come from.

The comment about Atta, for instance, dates back to October of 2000. He undertook months more training after this, and qualified for a commercial licence, so it’s perhaps unreasonable to use this old quote as a summary of his flying on 9/11.

Jones Aviation flying instructor Ivan Chirivella told investigators that Atta, 33 and al-Shehhi, 23 came across from Huffman Aviation hoping to improve their sloppy skills. Chirivella flew with Atta and al-Shehhi four hours almost every morning from Sept. to October 2000. It didn’t work out. According to the New York Times, Atta never looked at his instructor. His attention span was zero. Al-Shehhi fared no better. “After some harsh words,” both fledgling militants moved on.
http://web.archive.org/web/20040630021809/http://www.willthomas.net/911/911_Commission_Hearing.htm

Googling for the Al-Shehhi quote returns only references to the Sagadevan article, which doesn’t explain where it came from originally.

Khalid Al-Mihdhar was not one of the pilots according to the official account, neither was Salem Al-Hazmi, so any assessment of their abilities seems irrelevant.

Some of the quote about Hanjour is correct (“I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all”). This comes from a “former employee” at JetTech, a flying school Hanjour attended in January and February of 2001. The rest of the quote didn’t originally refer to Hanjour, though: it’s somehow been assembled from a comment about Al-Mihdhar and Al-Hazmi:

Alleged suicide pilots Nawaq al-Hazmi and Khaid al-Mihdhar briefly attended a San Diego fight school the previous spring, where they also washed out because of their limited English and incompetence at the controls. After just two flying lessons, their shaken instructors said “no more,” and advised al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar to quit. “Their English was horrible, and their mechanical skills were even worse,” one instructor told the Washington Post. “It was like they had hardly even ever driven a car.
http://web.archive.org/web/20040630021809/http://www.willthomas.net/911/911_Commission_Hearing.htm

Even Hanjour wasn't exactly a "flight school dropout", then. He had a private and commercial pilots licence, and a not insignificant amount of flying experience, including some simulator work (although on 737's). And while there are no shortage of scathing quotes about him, they're not always as they seem. Here's one, for example:

Chevrette said she contacted Anthony again when Hanjour began ground training for Boeing 737 jetliners and it became clear he didn't have the skills for the commercial pilot's license. "I don't truly believe he should have had it and I questioned that," she said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/10/attack/main508656.shtml

So does that mean he couldn't fly? Here's another story on the same person:

Chevrette said that the school's student, Hani Hanjour, lacked adequate English skills to gain his pilot's license. An FAA official responded to her concerns by suggesting that Hanjour could use an interpreter even though mastery of English is a requirement for a pilot. Chevrette said that when the Sept. 11 attacks occurred, she knew Hanjour must have been involved.

"I remember crying all the way to work knowing our company helped to do this," she said.

Chevrette said that Hanjour's English was so bad that it took him eight hours to complete an oral exam that should've taken two hours.
CBS News

Here she's talking about his skills in English, and expresses no doubt whatsoever that Hanjour could have been involved.

An early instructor isn't quite so damning:

FBI agents have questioned and administered a lie detector test to one of Hanjour's instructors in Arizona who was an Arab American and had signed off on Hanjour's flight instruction credentials before he got his pilot's license. That instructor said he told agents that Hanjour was "a very average pilot, maybe struggling a little bit." The instructor added, "Maybe his English wasn't very good."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/10/attack/main508656.shtml


One 9/11 Commission footnote (to Chapter 7) is relatively positive. 170. FBI report, "Summary of Penttbom Investigation," Feb. 29, 2004, pp. 5257. Hanjour successfully conducted a challenging certification flight supervised by an instructor at Congressional Air Charters of Gaithersburg, Maryland, landing at a small airport with a difficult approach.The instructor thought Hanjour may have had training from a military pilot because he used a terrain recognition system for navigation. Eddie Shalev interview (Apr.9, 2004).

And as Marcel Bernard pointed out, the hijackers wouldn't have required all the skills of a regular pilot:

"Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said" http://www.pentagonresearch.com/Newsday_com.htm

People will still say that the Pentagon attack was too difficult for Hanjour to have pulled off, however other articles quote pilots saying that isn’t the case.

New American included comments from pilots in a general piece on "9-11 Conspiracy Fact & Fiction":

...In Painful Questions: An Analysis of the September 11th Attack, Eric Hufschmid says: "I would say it is absurd to believe an inexperienced pilot could fly such a plane a few millimeters above the ground. The flight path of this plane is enough to convince me that no human was in control of it. I think only a computer is capable of flying an airplane in such a tricky manner. If terrorists flew the plane, they would qualify as the World's Greatest Pilots since they did tricks with a commercial aircraft that I doubt the best Air Force pilots could do."

Ralph Omholt's "skydrifter" website claims: "No pilot will claim to be able to hit such a spot as the Pentagon base under any conditions in a 757 doing 300 knots. As to the clearly alleged amateur pilots: IMPOSSIBLE!"

"Impossible"? "No pilot will claim...?" Well, we did not have any difficulty finding pilots who disagreed. Ronald D. Bull, a retired United Airlines pilot, in Jupiter, Florida, told The New American, "It's not that difficult, and certainly not impossible," noting that it's much easier to crash intentionally into a target than to make a controlled landing. "If you're doing a suicide run, like these guys were doing, you'd just keep the nose down and push like the devil," says Capt. Bull, who flew 727s, 747s, 757s, and 767s for many years, internationally and domestically, including into the Washington, D.C., airports.

George Williams of Waxhaw, North Carolina, piloted 707s, 727s, DC-10s, and 747s for Northwest Airlines for 38 years. "I don't see any merit to those arguments whatsoever," Capt. Williams told us. "The Pentagon is a pretty big target and I'd say hitting it was a fairly easy thing to do."

According to 9/11 "investigator" Dick Eastman, whose wild theories are posted on the American Patriot Friends Network and many other Internet sites, Flight 77 was part of an elaborate deception in which a remote-controlled F-16 "killer jet" actually hit the Pentagon, while the 757 swooped over the Pentagon and landed at Reagan National Airport! "With its engines off," says Eastman, Flight 77 silently "coasted" in to the airport and blended in with other air traffic. "There would be few people to see Flight 77 come through, and those who did would doubtless assume that it was yet another routine flight over Reagan National," he claims.

"That's so far-fetched it's beyond ludicrous," says Capt. Williams. "I've flown into Reagan [National Airport] hundreds of times and you can't just sneak in and 'blend in' without air traffic controllers knowing about it and without other pilots and witnesses noticing."

Besides, as Capt. Ron Bull points out, the Eastman scenario would require piloting skills far beyond what it would take to hit the Pentagon. "I've flown into Reagan National many times and my first trip in a 757 was no picnic," he says. "I had to really work at it, and that was after 25 years of experience flying big jets. Any scenario that has the 757 [Flight 77] taking a flight path over the Pentagon and landing at National unobserved is proposing something that is far more difficult � and far more difficult to believe � than flying the plane into the Pentagon. It's just not credible."

The New American


And Salon's "Ask the Pilot" also commented on the issue:

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://web.archive.org/web/20060916205041/http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2006/05/19/askthepilot186/index_np.html/


Experienced pilot Giulio Bernacchia agrees:

In my opinion the official version of the fact is absolutely plausible, does not require exceptional circumstances, bending of any law of physics or superhuman capabilities. Like other (real pilots) have said, the manoeuvres required of the hijackers were within their (very limited) capabilities, they were performed without any degree of finesse and resulted in damage to the targets only after desperate over manoeuvring of the planes. The hijackers took advantage of anything that might make their job easier, and decided not to rely on their low piloting skills. It is misleading to make people believe that the hijackers HAD to possess superior pilot skills to do what they did."

Not experienced?
The hijackers were too incompetent to fly planes | 911facts.dk
Hani Hanjour, American Airlines Flight 77
Arizona Aviation, Mesa, Arizona 11, 12

• Passed “Accelerated Pilot Program”
• Solo flights
• Passed “Private pilot airman”-exam
• Passed “State I”-examn for instrumental flying
• Passed “Commercial pilot”-exams
• Achieved flying license
• Trained in flight simulator for commercial jets

 

RIP Rob Balsamo, co-founder of Pilots For 911 Truth.

The aviation angle on the events of 911 are impossible and false.

 

Meh!

Hogwash. If you only read debunked and deceptive conspiracy garbage, your knowledge will be somewhat skewed.

@Eleuthera How come you only address things that reinforce your nonsensical and unfeasible claims?

 

Stick to your videotapes BM. You don't know squat about aviation or aeronautics.

 

I know considerably more than you do. And I most certainly do not rely on "videotapes"(they aren't on tape anymore - btw!) . Nice dodge though, you ignored the entire post. Is that the only genuine skill acquired by conspiracy theorists?

Answer the post properly, get to the "truth"!

Pilots for truth:
Experienced pilot Giulio Bernacchia agrees:

In my opinion the official version of the fact is absolutely plausible, does not require exceptional circumstances, bending of any law of physics or superhuman capabilities. Like other (real pilots) have said, the manoeuvres required of the hijackers were within their (very limited) capabilities, they were performed without any degree of finesse and resulted in damage to the targets only after desperate over manoeuvring of the planes. The hijackers took advantage of anything that might make their job easier, and decided not to rely on their low piloting skills. It is misleading to make people believe that the hijackers HAD to possess superior pilot skills to do what they did."

 

Pure poppycock. I've been in aviation since 1967. You don't know what you're talking about, not for the first time.

The aviation elements of the Official Conspiracy Theory are impossible and absurd for any seriously informed person.

 

Handing out peanuts and pillows with a trolley doesn't actually count.

Yet REAL pilots for truth say otherwise. And hey look, you ignored the entire post again and failed to acknowledge seriously informed pilots saying you are talking crap.

 

Hmmm, still no takers?

 

Yes it does. Just ask a criminal investigator.