you know b-rock, pilots can see outside of the plane. according to pilot testimony i googled, most pilots say that it's pretty easy to steer a plane by hand into a visible target on a clear day.
I don't think you really care, but whatever.
well, i'll preface again by admitting that I, personally, don't know shit about flying an airplane.
But there is sophisticated navigation equipment in the cockpit. You aren't blind without a flight plan, autopilot, or communication with GC.
Again, I've never flown a plane into towers, so I can only speculate on the logistics
So these brainiacs, whose instructors described them as "dumb and dumber", and had never been in the cockpit of a commercial airliner before, somehow figured out the "sophisticated navigation equipment" in under a few minutes, and made precise turns to hit the towers. That's what you're going with?
Wait a minute. Aren't these questions over a decade late????
And why are wucorp members being asked these questions? Do we have the answers?
Quote: 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.
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."
From FAA Registration Database: UAL Flt. 175. (A/C: B767-222 Tail #N612UA B# 21873, Engine Type: PW JT9D-7R4D)
This has been a major problem in the 911 equation. United Airlines 767s Used only Pratt & Whitney Engines. A General Electric Engine was found at G-Zero (CFM56 or CF6 series, see pic above). Stock 767's at seas-level, cannot attain the air speeds (verified by multiple radar and video analysis) of 560 MPH at Sea Level @ a relatively level pitch attitude. Boeing/Aueronautical Engineers says this wopuld IMPOSSIBLE, because of drag and air density.
The engine found at WTC is NOT from the planes that WE were TOLD hit it! They used modified/military 767s. With these, come more powerful engines. Like the General Electric CF6-series. The already strengthend Cargo and AWACs military, or E-767 (there are alt. theories here, evidence shows the poss. of "modified 767 to KC767s", as well). Add other hi-priority mod's, to critical stress points, flight control surfaces, a painfully obvious asymmetric, aerodynamic cover! (for a high-tech R/C FTS, or Flight Terrmination System, antenna on one side of the belly?). Needed for last step of guidance from a remote control operator?
maybe it was drones? more likely the planes where being controlled by remote control, as some of those maneuvers defied what experienced pilots could do.. let alone those with lil to no experience..
check the moves leading up to the collision... those turns would cause immense G force, some pilots state that the G force encountered would make you go un conscious...
again. logically and factually.. the official version of events is FLAWED
check two's a cunt
I want to know the truth behind that guy landing that plane in the Hudson River a few years ago please.
great point BeautifulRock, Ive actually never thought about it before
at this point I think that everyone should be able to agree that at the very least we are being lied to about the truth of 911
and we see these kinds of things in movies all the time makes us more gullible
shit like cars exploding after crashing, happens all the time in movies, seldom in reality
makes it easier to believe that planes can crash into enormous buildings that are built to withstand just such an event and in a couple hours with no warning they collapse into dust.
And then another building a block away catchs fire from some falling debris and burns for a while then diesel tanks ignite and blow and it makes the building collapse in a simultaneous symmetrical fashion.
and a big ass jet going 500 mph can crash perfectly in to a two story building and be completely engulfed by it with no outward sign that a plane ever even crashed into it
oh and the people that work on that side of the building in those offices where the impact was were luckly in the other side of the building in a meeting
ect. ect. ect. ect.
but I have seen the Al CIA DA training videos and if you can make it thru that obstacle course you will attain SUPER NINJA STATUS
Impermanence on this plane of reality/where criminality, brutality freely dwell/ Truth is a casualty in this hell/ Karma reins with divine causality, then its swell--StrangeLoveSurreal