Re: 9/11 Standard Operating Procedures

[george]

> The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training

is the same as flying any aircraft without training.
That's why we do hours in training aircraft, get PPLs and build hours
until we can do CPLs and instrument ratings and so on...
I'm crossposting this to an aviation group so you and your silly
claims can get laughed at over there

[[email protected]]

Are we also allowed to laugh at people who cross-post for no good
reason ?

[Robert M. Gary]

The main difference now is that we must validate your citizenship. If
you are not a U.S. citizen the CFI and the student must both get
approval from the FAA before training begins. If the CFI leaves for the
airline, the student's training authorization is void and he must get a
new background check. It doesn't make any sense but is that new way of
the FAA.

-Robert, CFI and authorized foreign student instructor.

[Jim Macklin]

TSA rules. Citizen of the USA, not that in yours and the
student logbook and the school records if at a school. Go
fly. Non-citizens, even a Canadian, get fingerprints,
photographs, and pay $150 to the TSA and wait for approval
[before solo].
If a certificate holder just wanting a flight review and no
new certificate, no restriction. If a new certificate would
be issued [type rating, category or class, TSA approval
required].

I think I got that correct.

TSA | Transportation Security Administration | Flight School
....
The Interim Final Rule (IFR), Flight Training for Aliens and
Other ... TSA understands
that some operators may be unable to view this training
module due to ...
www.tsa.gov/public/interapp/ editorial/editorial_1727.xml -
34k - Cached - Similar pages

TSA | Transportation Security Administration | 49 CFR,
Subchapter ...
Part 1550 Aircraft Security Under General Operating and
Flight Rules ...
from providing flight training to aliens and other
individuals designated by TSA ...
www.tsa.gov/public/interapp/editorial/
editorial_multi_image_with_table_0203.xml - 42k - Cached -
Similar pages

AOPA Online - AOPA's Guide to TSA's Alien Flight Training
....
Flight Training. The TSA rule initially defined "flight
training" as instruction
received from a flight school in an aircraft or aircraft
simulator that a ...
www.aopa.org/tsa_rule/ - 86k - Cached - Similar pages

AOPA Online - Regulatory Brief -- TSA Flight Training
Security Rule
The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), a
not-for-profit individual
membership association, effectively serves the interests
and needs of its ...
www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/regtsa.html - 39k -
Cached - Similar pages






--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.



"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
| The main difference now is that we must validate your
citizenship. If
| you are not a U.S. citizen the CFI and the student must
both get
| approval from the FAA before training begins. If the CFI
leaves for the
| airline, the student's training authorization is void and
he must get a
| new background check. It doesn't make any sense but is
that new way of
| the FAA.
|
| -Robert, CFI and authorized foreign student instructor.
|

[EagleEye]

Did you actually READ the article George, and did you crosspost it over
to the aviation group? The whole thing, including the interview?

Like the way you took the one line and snipped everything else.

[george]

EagleEye wrote:
> Did you actually READ the article George, and did you crosspost it over
> to the aviation group? The whole thing, including the interview?
>

Now what do you think ?
Supposing of course that you can.
You have made the claim that the mad muslims couldn't possibly have
flown the 9/11 suicides.
You are wrong and now you'll be able to explain to pilots as to how you
came to 'know' all about flying....

[Doug]

Well...... there was a guy handproping his Aeronca. It started and got
away from him with a full throttle. Plane took off, flew around till it
ran out of gas. They found it undamaged and upright on some farmers
field. So much for pilots needing godlike skill.

[Newps]

Doug wrote:
> Well...... there was a guy handproping his Aeronca. It started and got
> away from him with a full throttle. Plane took off, flew around till it
> ran out of gas. They found it undamaged and upright on some farmers
> field.

Never happened.

[Dave Stadt]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> Doug wrote:
>> Well...... there was a guy handproping his Aeronca. It started and got
>> away from him with a full throttle. Plane took off, flew around till it
>> ran out of gas. They found it undamaged and upright on some farmers
>> field.
>
> Never happened.

But it did happen to the guy in a Cherokee that fell asleep.

[[email protected]]

How did the Cherokee fall asleep?

[Dave Stadt]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> How did the Cherokee fall asleep?

Easy, big meal, wine, soft music and a good fire in the fire place.

[BDK]

In article . com>,
says...
>
>
> > The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training
>
> is the same as flying any aircraft without training.
> That's why we do hours in training aircraft, get PPLs and build hours
> until we can do CPLs and instrument ratings and so on...
> I'm crossposting this to an aviation group so you and your silly
> claims can get laughed at over there
>
>

Hell, these clowns don't seem to understand just about anyone, and I
mean anyone can fly a plane. It's the takeoffs, navigation, and
especially the landings that are the difficult parts.

Flying and turning a plane, regardless of it's size isn't hard. And yes,
I did some slight maneuvers on a friend's father's plane when I was
about 19.

Now a helicopter, that's hard.

BDK

[Immanuel Goldstein]

On 02/22/2006 02:25 AM, BDK wrote:
> In article . com>,
> says...
>>
>>> The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training
>> is the same as flying any aircraft without training.
>> That's why we do hours in training aircraft, get PPLs and build hours
>> until we can do CPLs and instrument ratings and so on...
>> I'm crossposting this to an aviation group so you and your silly
>> claims can get laughed at over there
>>
>
> Hell, these clowns don't seem to understand just about anyone, and I
> mean anyone can fly a plane. It's the takeoffs, navigation, and
> especially the landings that are the difficult parts.
>

Who was flying the planes?
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm>


--
Closely Monitored,

Immanuel Goldstein

Videos of Building 7 Demolition
<http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html#building7>

"It's just a god-damned piece of paper!"
- Bush on the U.S. Constitution, <http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp12142005.html>

"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act."
- Orwell

"The history of the present [Junta] is a history of repeated injuries and
usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute
Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world."
- Declaration of Independence

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same
Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their
right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards
for their future security."
- Declaration of Independence

[BDK]

In article >,
says...
> On 02/22/2006 02:25 AM, BDK wrote:
> > In article . com>,
> > says...
> >>
> >>> The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training
> >> is the same as flying any aircraft without training.
> >> That's why we do hours in training aircraft, get PPLs and build hours
> >> until we can do CPLs and instrument ratings and so on...
> >> I'm crossposting this to an aviation group so you and your silly
> >> claims can get laughed at over there
> >>
> >
> > Hell, these clowns don't seem to understand just about anyone, and I
> > mean anyone can fly a plane. It's the takeoffs, navigation, and
> > especially the landings that are the difficult parts.
> >
>
> Who was flying the planes?
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm>
>
>
>

Desperate aren't you? That nonsense about the hijackers being alive was
admitted to be false by the BBC a long time ago. Sometimes people have
the same names, big deal. It's not true.


I know 3 people named Jim Smith. At one time, I knew 2 Gene
Walters.....A father and daughter!


BDK

[EagleEye]

>> Did you actually READ the article George, and did you crosspost it over
>> to the aviation group? The whole thing, including the interview?

> Now what do you think ?
> Supposing of course that you can.
> You have made the claim that the mad muslims couldn't possibly have
> flown the 9/11 suicides.
> You are wrong and now you'll be able to explain to pilots as to how you
> came to 'know' all about flying....

First of all, the post was an article from an aeronautics engineer and
pilot authorized to fly the "heavies", and so I myself was claiming
nothing, and secondly not only didn't you copy over the article itself
so these poor pilots would know just what the hell we were talking
about, you intentionally removed from the header all the newsgroups to
whom the thread was initially directed and redirected the thread to the
two groups rec.aviation.piloting, alt.conspiracy. Now why would you do
that? What are you hiding george? Loods like a desperate measure on
your part.

[Jim Macklin]

With an Apache squaw?


> wrote in message
ups.com...
| How did the Cherokee fall asleep?
|

[Immanuel Goldstein]

On 22/02/2006 04:33, BDK enscribed:
>>>>
>>> Hell, these clowns don't seem to understand just about anyone, and I
>>> mean anyone can fly a plane. It's the takeoffs, navigation, and
>>> especially the landings that are the difficult parts.
>>>
>> Who was flying the planes?
>> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Desperate aren't you? That nonsense about the hijackers being alive was
> admitted to be false by the BBC a long time ago. Sometimes people have
> the same names, big deal. It's not true.
>

Cite?


--
Closely Monitored,

Immanuel Goldstein

"The history of the present [US Government] is a history of repeated injuries
and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute
Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world."
- Declaration of Independence

The Pentagon Strike
<http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm>

The Demolition of WTC Building 7
<http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html#building7>

"It's just a god-damned piece of paper!"
- Bush on the U.S. Constitution, <http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp12142005.html>

"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act."
- Orwell

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same
Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their
right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards
for their future security."
- Declaration of Independence

[Thomas Borchert]

EagleEye,

> the post was an article from an aeronautics engineer and
> pilot authorized to fly the "heavies"
>

How do you know? For all we know, the post was from a dog capable of
operating a keyboard. Also, "argument by authority" doesn't cut it.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jim Macklin]

Real airplanes are very easy to fly, they have been designed
to be stable. Your position is utter BS.



"Immanuel Goldstein" > wrote in
message ...
| On 22/02/2006 04:33, BDK enscribed:
| >>>>
| >>> Hell, these clowns don't seem to understand just about
anyone, and I
| >>> mean anyone can fly a plane. It's the takeoffs,
navigation, and
| >>> especially the landings that are the difficult parts.
| >>>
| >> Who was flying the planes?
| >>
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm>
| >>
| >>
| >>
| >
| > Desperate aren't you? That nonsense about the hijackers
being alive was
| > admitted to be false by the BBC a long time ago.
Sometimes people have
| > the same names, big deal. It's not true.
| >
|
| Cite?
|
|
| --
| Closely Monitored,
|
| Immanuel Goldstein
|
| "The history of the present [US Government] is a history
of repeated injuries
| and usurpations, all having in direct object the
establishment of an absolute
| Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be
submitted to a candid world."
| - Declaration of Independence
|
| The Pentagon Strike
| <http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm>
|
| The Demolition of WTC Building 7
|
<http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html#building7>
|
| "It's just a god-damned piece of paper!"
| - Bush on the U.S. Constitution,
<http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp12142005.html>
|
| "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a
revolutionary act."
| - Orwell
|
| "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing
invariably the same
| Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute
Despotism, it is their
| right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and
to provide new Guards
| for their future security."
| - Declaration of Independence

[Jose]

> I know 3 people named Jim Smith. At one time, I knew 2 Gene
> Walters.....A father and daughter!

I know two Jan VanLeers... they are married to each other.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Newps]

Dave Stadt wrote:

> "Newps" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>
>>Doug wrote:
>>
>>>Well...... there was a guy handproping his Aeronca. It started and got
>>>away from him with a full throttle. Plane took off, flew around till it
>>>ran out of gas. They found it undamaged and upright on some farmers
>>>field.
>>
>>Never happened.
>
>
> But it did happen to the guy in a Cherokee that fell asleep.
>

It was a Commanche and it was totalled after it crash landed. No
airplane has ever taken off and flown for more than a few seconds
without the ending being a hell of a wreck.

[Peter R.]

Newps > wrote:

> It was a Commanche and it was totalled after it crash landed. No
> airplane has ever taken off and flown for more than a few seconds
> without the ending being a hell of a wreck.

I distinctly remember a case of a tail dragger here in central NY back in
the early to mid 1980s where the pilot hopped out after landing to do
something quick and the aircraft, left at a high idle, did take off on its
own, due to the trim being set nose up.

The news account of this incident described the aircraft climbing a bit,
then stalling and regaining lift then climbing some more. This went on for
roughly 45 minutes until the aircraft ran out of fuel and settled in some
trees somewhere in the south of the Adirondack State park.

Knowing you will scream "bull****" to this as well, I am trying to find a
source other than my memory of the news account to prove this and am in the
process of searching.


--
Peter

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-02-22, EagleEye > wrote:
> First of all, the post was an article from an aeronautics engineer and
> pilot authorized to fly the "heavies"

What country is this pilot certificated to fly heavies in? Is he
licensed by the FAA?

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[B a r r y]

Peter R. wrote:
>
> Knowing you will scream "bull****" to this as well, I am trying to find a
> source other than my memory of the news account to prove this and am in the
> process of searching.
>

If it ever really happened or not is one thing...

I can't understand why a simple airplane _couldn't_ take off and fly
itself if properly trimmed and the open space were available. Models do
it all the time, using the same rules of physics. Any inherently stable
design will self-correct in flight.

Any of us who have trimmed small aircraft to fly themselves off the
runway should be able to see this as well.

A full-scale aircraft landing itself is a whole 'nuther day... <G>

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-02-22, Newps > wrote:
> It was a Commanche and it was totalled after it crash landed. No
> airplane has ever taken off and flown for more than a few seconds
> without the ending being a hell of a wreck.

There was a pilotless small tailwheel aircraft in Illinois that got away
from the person hand-propping it, then went on to fly a couple of hours
(pilotless) before landing in a field in what looked like a passable
forced landing (the aircraft was damaged, but not a 'hell of a wreck').

Unfortunately I can't find the magic incantations to bring up the NTSB
report - the details I remember is that the plane climbed to over 12000
feet and a police aircraft followed it for a while.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Immanuel Goldstein > wrote:

> On 02/22/2006 02:25 AM, BDK wrote:
> > In article . com>,
> > says...
> >>
> >>> The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training
> >> is the same as flying any aircraft without training.
> >> That's why we do hours in training aircraft, get PPLs and build hours
> >> until we can do CPLs and instrument ratings and so on...
> >> I'm crossposting this to an aviation group so you and your silly
> >> claims can get laughed at over there
> >>
> >
> > Hell, these clowns don't seem to understand just about anyone, and I
> > mean anyone can fly a plane. It's the takeoffs, navigation, and
> > especially the landings that are the difficult parts.
> >
>
> Who was flying the planes?

The hijacker were flying the planes, after they murdered the crew, you
fool!

All they had to do was, effectively, steer the plane -- the day was
"severe clear" over the whole East Coast, with 100+ miles visibility.

All the hard stuff -- takeoff, trim for cruise, etc. had already been
done.

All they needed to do was to steer in the general direction of the
targets, until they saw them. It was a simple matter to dive at the WTC,
once they saw it from 20-30 miles away.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article . com>,
"EagleEye" > wrote:

> >> Did you actually READ the article George, and did you crosspost it over
> >> to the aviation group? The whole thing, including the interview?
>
> > Now what do you think ?
> > Supposing of course that you can.
> > You have made the claim that the mad muslims couldn't possibly have
> > flown the 9/11 suicides.
> > You are wrong and now you'll be able to explain to pilots as to how you
> > came to 'know' all about flying....
>
> First of all, the post was an article from an aeronautics engineer and
> pilot authorized to fly the "heavies", and so I myself was claiming
> nothing, and secondly not only didn't you copy over the article itself
> so these poor pilots would know just what the hell we were talking
> about, you intentionally removed from the header all the newsgroups to
> whom the thread was initially directed and redirected the thread to the
> two groups rec.aviation.piloting, alt.conspiracy. Now why would you do
> that? What are you hiding george? Loods like a desperate measure on
> your part.

I read the whole article and found it severely lacking. Whether or not
he is an aeronautical engineer is irrelevant. I am an aerunautical
engineer and have worked with others whose aeronautical knowledge varied
from abysmal to outstanding. I have also been flying for 45 years and
can separate the loons from the geese.

This guy is a fraud -- his use of the term "pilotage" gives him away as
having no aeronautical knowledge -- not even a student pilot.

[Newps]

Peter R. wrote:

> Newps > wrote:
>
>
>>It was a Commanche and it was totalled after it crash landed. No
>>airplane has ever taken off and flown for more than a few seconds
>>without the ending being a hell of a wreck.
>
>
> I distinctly remember a case of a tail dragger here in central NY back in
> the early to mid 1980s where the pilot hopped out after landing to do
> something quick and the aircraft, left at a high idle, did take off on its
> own, due to the trim being set nose up.
>
> The news account of this incident described the aircraft climbing a bit,
> then stalling and regaining lift then climbing some more. This went on for
> roughly 45 minutes until the aircraft ran out of fuel and settled in some
> trees somewhere in the south of the Adirondack State park.
>
> Knowing you will scream "bull****" to this as well, I am trying to find a
> source other than my memory of the news account to prove this and am in the
> process of searching.

I knew about the Commanche because a magazine like Plane and Pilot or
Private Pilot did an article on it a few years ago. There was an exhaust
leak into the cabin and the guy passed out due to CO poisoning. They
showed the picture of the plane on the ground after the crash. There
was a Bonanza that this happened to about 75 miles SW of here about 5
years ago.

[Vandar]

Immanuel Goldstein wrote:

> On 02/22/2006 02:25 AM, BDK wrote:
>
>> In article . com>,
>> says...
>>
>>>
>>>> The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training
>>>
>>> is the same as flying any aircraft without training.
>>> That's why we do hours in training aircraft, get PPLs and build hours
>>> until we can do CPLs and instrument ratings and so on...
>>> I'm crossposting this to an aviation group so you and your silly
>>> claims can get laughed at over there
>>>
>>
>> Hell, these clowns don't seem to understand just about anyone, and I
>> mean anyone can fly a plane. It's the takeoffs, navigation, and
>> especially the landings that are the difficult parts.
>>
>
> Who was flying the planes?
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm>

Waleed and Wail al-Shehri's father says he didn't hear from his sons for
months prior to 9/11 and their brother has said they are both dead.
The person the BBC referenced is named Walid al-Shri, not Waleed M.
al-Shehri.

The Abdulaziz Al Omari cited in the BBC report is not the same person as
the Abdulaziz Al Omari who was a 9/11 hijacker. The FBI gave the wrong
personal information on the hijacker, but the picture and name were correct.

Saeed Al-ghamdi is a similar situation to Al Omari. The full name of the
person in the BBC report is Saleh Saeed Al-ghamdi. The hijacker is
simply Saeed Al-ghamdi.

There is no evidence that Khalid Al Midhar is alive.

[Dogchain]

"EagleEye" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>> Did you actually READ the article George, and did you crosspost it over
>>> to the aviation group? The whole thing, including the interview?
>
>> Now what do you think ?
>> Supposing of course that you can.
>> You have made the claim that the mad muslims couldn't possibly have
>> flown the 9/11 suicides.
>> You are wrong and now you'll be able to explain to pilots as to how you
>> came to 'know' all about flying....
>
> First of all, the post was an article from an aeronautics engineer and
> pilot authorized to fly the "heavies", and so I myself was claiming
> nothing, and secondly not only didn't you copy over the article itself
> so these poor pilots would know just what the hell we were talking
> about, you intentionally removed from the header all the newsgroups to
> whom the thread was initially directed and redirected the thread to the
> two groups rec.aviation.piloting, alt.conspiracy. Now why would you do
> that? What are you hiding george? Loods like a desperate measure on
> your part.

George is Gay.

[Dogchain]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> EagleEye,
>
>> the post was an article from an aeronautics engineer and
>> pilot authorized to fly the "heavies"
>>
>
> How do you know? For all we know, the post was from a dog capable of
> operating a keyboard. Also, "argument by authority" doesn't cut it.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Your meds aren't cutting it... dog operating keyboard... Bwahahahah

[Jim Macklin]

George Gay was the survivor...
US People--Gay, George H., Jr. Ensign Gay served with
Torpedo Squadron Eight (VT-8) on USS Hornet (CV-8), and was
the only survivor of thirty Hornet torpedo plane pilots and
aircrewmen ...
www.history.navy.mil/photos/pers-us/uspers-g/g-gay.htm
- 9k - Cached - Similar pages


LT George Gay, VT-8 sole survivor of Battle of Midway
Recollections of Lieutenant George Gay, USNR -- sole
survivor of Torpedo Squadron Eight (VT-8) -- describing his
experiences during the Battle of Midway. ...
www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq81-8c.htm - 55k -
Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from www.history.navy.mil ]


"Dogchain" > wrote in message
...
|
| "EagleEye" > wrote in message
|
oups.com...
| >>> Did you actually READ the article George, and did you
crosspost it over
| >>> to the aviation group? The whole thing, including the
interview?
| >
| >> Now what do you think ?
| >> Supposing of course that you can.
| >> You have made the claim that the mad muslims couldn't
possibly have
| >> flown the 9/11 suicides.
| >> You are wrong and now you'll be able to explain to
pilots as to how you
| >> came to 'know' all about flying....
| >
| > First of all, the post was an article from an
aeronautics engineer and
| > pilot authorized to fly the "heavies", and so I myself
was claiming
| > nothing, and secondly not only didn't you copy over the
article itself
| > so these poor pilots would know just what the hell we
were talking
| > about, you intentionally removed from the header all the
newsgroups to
| > whom the thread was initially directed and redirected
the thread to the
| > two groups rec.aviation.piloting, alt.conspiracy. Now
why would you do
| > that? What are you hiding george? Loods like a desperate
measure on
| > your part.
|
| George is Gay.
|
|

[george]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> EagleEye,
>
> > the post was an article from an aeronautics engineer and
> > pilot authorized to fly the "heavies"
> >
>
> How do you know? For all we know, the post was from a dog capable of
> operating a keyboard. Also, "argument by authority" doesn't cut it.
>
notice how this 'expert' doesn't have the aeronautical alphabet one
would associate with such a position ?????
LAME :-)

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 04:15:57 -0600, Immanuel Goldstein
> wrote:

>On 02/22/2006 02:25 AM, BDK wrote:
>> In article . com>,
>> says...
>>>
>>>> The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training
>>> is the same as flying any aircraft without training.
>>> That's why we do hours in training aircraft, get PPLs and build hours
>>> until we can do CPLs and instrument ratings and so on...
>>> I'm crossposting this to an aviation group so you and your silly
>>> claims can get laughed at over there
>>>
>>
>> Hell, these clowns don't seem to understand just about anyone, and I
>> mean anyone can fly a plane. It's the takeoffs, navigation, and
>> especially the landings that are the difficult parts.
>>
>
>Who was flying the planes?
><http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm>


>> http://mckinneysucks.blogspot.com/2003_09_01_mckinneysucks_archive.html

>> The authors explain in great detail the anatomy of one of the more
>> popular internet memes associated with 9/11 -- that many of the
>> hijackers are still alive:

>> Take the BBC, for example, which did in fact report, on September
>> 23, 2001, that some of the alleged terrorists were alive and healthy
>> and had protested their being named as assassins.

>> But there is one wrinkle. The BBC journalist responsible for the
>> story only recalls this supposed sensation after having been told the
>> date on which the story aired. "No, we did not have any videotape or
>> photographs of the individuals in question at that time," he says, and
>> tells us that the report was based on articles in Arab newspapers,
>> such as the Arab News, an English-language Saudi newspaper.

>> The operator at the call center has the number for the Arab News
>> on speed dial. We make a call to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. A few seconds
>> later, Managing Editor John Bradley is on the line. When we tell
>> Bradley our story, he snorts and says: "That's ridiculous! People here
>> stopped talking about that a long time ago."

>> Bradley tells us that at the time his reporters did not speak
>> directly with the so-called "survivors," but instead combined reports
>> from other Arab papers. These reports, says Bradley, appeared at a
>> time when the only public information about the attackers was a list
>> of names that had been published by the FBI on September 14th. The FBI
>> did not release photographs until four days after the cited reports,
>> on September 27th.

>> The photographs quickly resolved the nonsense about surviving
>> terrorists. According to Bradley, "all of this is attributable to the
>> chaos that prevailed during the first few days following the attack.
>> What we're dealing with are coincidentally identical names." In Saudi
>> Arabia, says Bradley, the names of two of the allegedly surviving
>> attackers, Said al-Ghamdi and Walid al-Shari, are "as common as John
>> Smith in the United States or Great Britain."

>> The final explanation is provided by the newspaper Asharq
>> Al-Awsat, one of the sources of Arab News, which in turn serves as a
>> source to the BBC. Mohammed Samman is the name of the reporter who
>> interviewed a man named Said al-Ghamdi in Tunis, only to find that
>> al-Ghamdi was quite horrified to discover his name on the FBI list of
>> assassins.

>> Samman remembers his big story well. "That was a wonderful story,"
>> he says. And that's all it was. It had nothing to do with the version
>> made up of Br?ckers' and Bülow's combined fantasies.

>> "The problem," says Samman, "was that after the first FBI list had
>> been published, CNN released a photo of the pilot Said al-Ghamdi that
>> had been obtained from the files of those Saudi pilots who had at some
>> point received official flight training in the United States."

>> After Samman's story was reported by the news agencies, he was
>> contacted by CNN. "I gave them Ghamdi's telephone number. The CNN
>> people talked to the pilot and apologized profusely. The whole thing
>> was quite obviously a mix-up. The Ghamdi family is one of the largest
>> families in Saudi Arabia, and there are thousands of men named Said
>> al-Ghamdi."

>> When we ask Samman to take another look at the FBI's list of
>> photographs, he is more than happy to oblige, and tells us: "The
>> Ghamdi on the photo is not the pilot with whom I spoke."

>> The investigative journalists should have been able to figure out
>> just how obvious the solution to this puzzle was. They all write that
>> a man named Abd al-Asis al-Umari had been named as a perpetrator by
>> the FBI, and that there are apparently many individuals with this
>> name. Br?ckers and Hau? even noticed that the FBI had initially
>> released an incorrect first name to the press. All of this certainly
>> suggests that there was a mix-up, but it's also something that the
>> conspiracy theorists apparently did not consider plausible.

>> In the case of the supposedly surviving terrorist Walid al-Shari,
>> the truth is even more obvious. At least Bülow had the opportunity to
>> avoid making this mistake. In his book, he writes that the alleged
>> assassin Shari "lives in Casablanca and works as a pilot, according to
>> information provided by the airline Royal Air Maroc."

>> If Bülow had inquired with the airline, he would have discovered
>> that the name of the pilot who lives in Casablanca is Walid al-Shri
>> and not, like that of the assassin, Walid al-Shari. This minor detail
>> makes a big difference, namely the difference between a dead terrorist
>> and a living innocent man. But to conspiracy theorists, discovering
>> the truth is like solving a crossword puzzle for children: What's a
>> four-letter word for a domesticated animal? Hrse.

The page continues:

While doing research for my conspiracy page last year, I had e-mailed
several different desks at the BBC to inform them that their story was
being used all over the internet as grist for these conspiracy
theories, and asked if they had ever followed up on their apparent
bombshell story. How, I asked, could they just do one story on such an
accusation, and never make an attempt at closure one way or the other.

I never got an answer. I'm afraid that's all too common in journalism
today. Headlines like "Initial Reports Proven Untrue" just don't sell
newspapers, and I guess there just isn't a commensurate sense of
accountability among reporters and their editors to clear up
speculative nonsense for which they were responsible in the first
place.

Later, the Philly Daily News ran an "unanswered questions" piece that
included the same "hijackers still living" canard. I e-mailed the
columnist, Will Bunch, primarily to inform him that one of those
still-living hijackers was recently featured on an al-qaeda recruiting
video -- reading his will, no less. I also asked him why he didn't try
to solve any of these mysteries himself, rather than whining, "So why
did this story line vanish into thin air?" A rather odd question for a
reporter to be asking his readers, I thought.

Bunch's response: "I'm a good reporter, but if I tried to solve all 20
questions myself I'd be 96 years old by the time I was done!" With
this level of laziness among professional journalists, it's no wonder
the conspiracy loons are able to point to so many "inconsistencies"
and "unanswered questions."

[[email protected]]

On 22 Feb 2006 03:26:31 -0800, "EagleEye"
> wrote:

>>> Did you actually READ the article George, and did you crosspost it over
>>> to the aviation group? The whole thing, including the interview?
>
>> Now what do you think ?
>> Supposing of course that you can.
>> You have made the claim that the mad muslims couldn't possibly have
>> flown the 9/11 suicides.
>> You are wrong and now you'll be able to explain to pilots as to how you
>> came to 'know' all about flying....
>
>First of all, the post was an article from an aeronautics engineer and
>pilot authorized to fly the "heavies",

Or so he claims. Yet he believes that it is impossible to fly
"heavies" in VFR conditions without looking at the instruments,
proving that he is a fraud.

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:02:06 -0000, Dylan Smith
> wrote:

>On 2006-02-22, EagleEye > wrote:
>> First of all, the post was an article from an aeronautics engineer and
>> pilot authorized to fly the "heavies"
>
>What country is this pilot certificated to fly heavies in? Is he
>licensed by the FAA?

Which is a good question. Nila Sagedevan is not currently licensed to
fly ANYTHING in the United States according to the FAA Airmen
database.

[Thomas Borchert]

Dogchain,

> Your meds aren't cutting it... dog operating keyboard... Bwahahahah
>

Let me humor you: This is a reference to a very old cartoon joke about
the internet. See http://www.unc.edu/depts/jomc/academics/dri/idog.html

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Dogchain]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Dogchain,
>
>> Your meds aren't cutting it... dog operating keyboard... Bwahahahah
>>
>
> Let me humor you: This is a reference to a very old cartoon joke about
> the internet. See http://www.unc.edu/depts/jomc/academics/dri/idog.html
>

Here's a reference for you. Humor yourself with a butt plug.



> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

[Immanuel Goldstein]

On 2/23/2006 2:54 PM, Robert M. Gary wrote:
> Please do not use rec.aviation.* newsgroups for this. Please use
> alt.conspiracy
>

My original post was named "The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without
Training":
<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/browse_thread/thread/a5e931f12a1b2553/a1f6eb8d27e078d5>

It appears someone was reviewing my other posting history, and ended up replying
to another post of mine from alt.politics, named "Re: 911-How Bushies TOOK DOWN
WTC7". From there the thread was redirected to rec.aviation.*, and I didn't spot
the switchover.

I sincerely apologize, for not noticing this error, and for not correcting it.


--
Closely Monitored,

Immanuel Goldstein

"It's just a god-damned piece of paper!"
- US President speaking about the U.S. Constitution,
<http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp12142005.html>

"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act."
- Orwell