Anyone trained to fly passenger jets (like Hani Hanjor was) could do the turn. Anyonel without any training at all could crash a jet.
There are things one can do with an aircraft that are high risk that is even experienced pilots can screw it up, there are many things that airliners do, that are low risk, and then the stunts that were alleged to have been done on 9/11 were high risk, that is even if an experienced pilot did it, the odds of crashing without reaching the target, are high.
we were shown the alleged "FLT11" & "FLT175" that managed to crash into their targets and then the WTC tower(s) "collapsed" into total destruction ( why did the NIST use the term "total collapse"? ) a whole lot of "it could happen like that" is presented as being an absolute slam-dunk sure thing.... when really its nothing of the sort. and really, so far, there is NO proof at all that a Boeing 757/767 type aircraft can be flown so near sea level and at 590 mph. whats up with that?
Except for the fact that they did and crashed into the WTC towers and then they collapsed as everyone saw.
This is like saying that you have some sort of special magic that keeps great white bear out of the getto, and somebody mentions that the "great white bear" is a Polar Bear and doesn't live in the south side of Chicago, and in response the holder of the special magic sez "see, magic work good" what?
The entire official story is a hypothetical rendition of events. ( imaginary or? ) where is the foundation for the story of the suicidal hijackers?
Irrelevant. Different buildings, different aircraft. Different reason. Disaster preparedness. Lots of stuff going on in this country.
Okay. So, you don't think it's even a bit odd that simultaneous 'simulations' running at almost at the same times as the events were unfolding even a bit strange. Fair enough. How is it you're able to make continuous concessions like this FOR our beloved government, but have to have verifiable, 100% accurate and unbending accuracy with opposing points of view? I think if you asked the average citizen if that were somewhat odd, they'd agree. That's exactly why we need a real investigation.
Your trust in all things government is admirable. Trashing logic and saluting the official boloney without further consideration is, in my opinion, isn't giving it much thought.
Who's asking you to trust in anything (besides your government)? Why WOULDN'T you want to know if their story checked out?
You dont have to "trust" the government, the evidence is overwhelming. Start thinking for yourself and do some research.
9/11/2001 is the most poorly documented disaster since the invention of photography. The facts speak for themselves, zero accounting for the alleged airliners that were said to have been used as weapons. No explanation at all for the complete & total destruction of three steel framed skyscrapers. Documented lies & fraud from the NIST ( WTC7 structural description) and the "evidence" is overwhelming? Please ..... look again, its a farce!
Except of course for the ATC, the voice recordings, visual testimony, and photographic evidence. Oh and the missing people.
Case in point, the airliners, what is presented by the official story is simply unsupported allegations. There were airliners used as weapons, > OK, Where are the airliners ..... >> they were totally destroyed in the crash events .... >then how do you know there were any airliners at all .... >> there are these little bits of aircraft .... >and exactly how much of the aircraft was recovered? ..... >>nobody knows, all we have is some un-measured quantity of bits ..... >and that is accounting for the aircraft? ..... >>trust me, we have physical proof of an airliner .... >and it exists in exactly what form?
Simple as that "their story checks out" right, & the insufficient evidence for crashed aircraft at any of the 4 sites, is checking out for you? the collapse of 3 steel framed buildings that day, that is all logical and perfect, right? AMERICA is under attack, have we properly identified the enemy?
I don't think anyone knew exactly what was going to happen to the WTC minutes before the tragedy occurred.
Yes, due to perceived threats at the time, all NORAD or military threat assessment focused outside of the contiguous US. Hijackings up to that time had ended only with demands and standoffs so the perception that future threats in that regard would be similar. Government, if anything, is not really very creative or forward thinking outside of the box. When the aircraft started showing irregular activity, there was much confusion in ATC and eventually the information was relayed to government organizations. By then it was really too late to stop anything. Since 9/11, a lot of processes have been changed in both military and ATC assessments. EDIT: I used to work for ATC. Second EDIT: Saying government should have known what would happen is like saying you should know your spouse would screw around before they ever did.
That's the context that conspiracy lovers seem not to understand. You cannot expect that the government, the security agencies and the military command chains reacted to an unpredictable threat. They were reacting to what they were observing on the base of the long experience [worldwide] about hijacking of planes by extremists of any kind. Usually they wanted audience for their requests and / or money ... and / or a safe airport to reach. 9/11 terrorists wanted something dramatically different.
