Retired USAF pilot Col. Guy S. Razer says 9/11 was 'inside job' perpetrated by US government

reply to post by vipertech0596


Maybe you should listen to the arguments for the conspiracy instead of burying your head in the sand and denying everything!? I don't believe everything I hear about the events of 9/11 but I've seen enough to realise that there are some major flaws in the governments theory of what happened that day. From your reflection on your reply to me its obvious that you have a closed and locked off mind and are not up to listening to anything said by someone who questions the governments version of events.
"I sincerly wish you the best of luck with that idealogy!"

reply to post by CholmondleyWarner


No, it means that for every cockamamie theory that has been presented by the "truth" movement, some diligent and honest research will shoot it down. Nice attempt at insulting me though.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by CholmondleyWarner

 

No, it means that for every cockamamie theory that has been presented by the "truth" movement, some diligent and honest research will shoot it down. Nice attempt at insulting me though.

You managed to find an insult in my reply!? That says it all doesn't it. LOL. If I wanted to insult you it would not be veiled and you would definately see it for what it was.
"Please pick up your credibility at the door as you leave as you've just done yourself more damage than any "truther", as you call them, could ever do to you...

reply to post by CholmondleyWarner


." From your reflection on your reply to me its obvious that you have a closed and locked off mind and are not up to listening to anything said by someone who questions the governments version of events."

Like I said, attempt to insult. Didnt work though, thanks for playing.

Notice anything similar? (to the WTC towers only)



Apparently these had steel frames.

The OS for 9/11 stinks... BUT that doesn't mean incredible circumstances DIDN'T occur that day.

I believe, and it is documented, that the terrorists were known about and tailed for a year before attacks, for which the targets and plan of attack by air was known in advance.
I believe the USA wanted an attack to go to war against the middle east and so allowed these 'novices' to continue..
I believe they underestimated what some terrorists could achieve with basic flying skills and religious anger.

The USA could have contrived some minor incident (bomb in Times Square: death toll 33) to have a reason to go to war. No-one would have a plan that demolished ICONIC USA landmarks in order to go to war.

THAT IS INSANE!!! Think about it you 'truthers'.

In my humble opinion the majority of Americans are pretty dumb and thats why I think they could believe their government would destroy a national landmark and 2000 civilians in order to go to war, when in reality they could blow up a dustbin, kill 33 people and go to war.

Our world is fecked up but we don't need to invent illogical and overly extravagent reasons for stuff to happen.

Sometimes the most obvious reason is the right one.

I think the OS is covering up for people, but not to the extent of controlled demolition of the towers. Just covering up for allowing the terrorists to give their 'insane, impossible ' mission ago.

On 9/11 that 'impossible' mission actually worked.

Now the question I would ask is how many of those terrorists were paid//trained by the US government?

reply to post by vipertech0596

Wow, you're actually correct. I can't believe the instructor who refused to rent Hani Hanjour a Cessna would say something like that. And I certainly understand why you didn't cite any source where it can still be found.

History Commons adds a perspective that makes this a serious contender to become the thread's most cherry-picked quote:

Mid-August 2001: Hijacker Hanjour Still Not Skilled Enough to Fly Solo

In spite of Hanjour’s lack of flying skills, chief instructor Marcel Bernard later claims, “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.” [Capital News, 9/19/2001; Gazette (Greenbelt), 9/21/2001; Newsday, 9/23/2001; Washington Post, 10/15/2001]

However, on 9/11, in piloting Flight 77 into the Pentagon, Hanjour would have needed to do much more than simply point the plane at a target. Because Flight 77 at first seemed to overshoot its target, the Washington Post will note that “the unidentified pilot executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver. The plane circled 270 degrees to the right to approach the Pentagon from the west, whereupon Flight 77 fell below radar level.… Aviation sources said the plane was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm.” [Washington Post, 9/12/2001] One Washington air traffic controller will later comment, “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.” [ABC News, 10/24/2001] One law enforcement official who will study Flight 77’s descent after 9/11 will call it the work of “a great talent… virtually a textbook turn and landing.” [Washington Post, 9/10/2002]

Remarkably, the 9/11 Commission will overlook the numerous accounts of Hanjour’s terrible piloting skills (see April 15, 1999 and January-February 2001) and state that 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed assigned the Pentagon target specifically to Hanjour because he was “the operation’s most experienced pilot.” [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 530]

www.historycommons.org...

So the crack 9/11 Commission recognized a guy who couldn't fly a Cessna as "the operation's most experienced pilot." Why doesn't that surprise me?

In any case, this whole debate about Hani Hanjour is ludicrous. When the government decides to release a single photo or video of whatever hit the Pentagon, that's when I'll start rethinking my belief that it was actually a missile.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by CholmondleyWarner

 

." From your reflection on your reply to me its obvious that you have a closed and locked off mind and are not up to listening to anything said by someone who questions the governments version of events."

Like I said, attempt to insult. Didnt work though, thanks for playing.

Saying you have a closed and locked off mind Isn't an insult! Its a simple and obvious fact... No, an insult is if I called you an expletive or swore at you... Well it is in my world.
Forget about picking up your credibility at the door as with your childish reply you've just trampled all over it and kicked it into a bin...lol

reply to post by CholmondleyWarner


No, I said it was an attempt at an insult. Had problems with reading comprehension in school did we?

reply to post by manmental


Your absolutely correct, the towers were not demo'd by sleeper agents nor black ops specialists. The real conspiracy of 911 is all of these outlandish theorys of no planes, controlled demolition and such getting in the way of real progress. I remember the first time I heard of the demo thing and I laughed so hard I couldn't stand it. I mean really, where do these things get dreamed up at then propagated into people's mind from? THAT sounds like a CIA black bag op if I ever heard of one.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by CholmondleyWarner

 

No, I said it was an attempt at an insult. Had problems with reading comprehension in school did we?

Yes, I was in the class next to the one you sat in where all the little timid children where taught the difference between an insult, attempted or otherwise, LOL, and a honest observation.
Forget about your credibility now, it's too late...

reply to post by CholmondleyWarner


Total bunk.

From what I've heard not even professional pilots could perform the maneuvres over the Pentagon lawns, the high speed turns etc, that Hani is said to have made!

You didn't read my post, earlier? 300 knots is hardly "high speed" in a turn.

Look at this PDF: www.ntsb.gov...

On Page #9 (labeled Figure 1) is a chart graphing four FDR parameters. Note speed and heading, specifically, for the last few minutes until impact. Take your time, getting to see how to interpret it.

Here, a video from a Dutch TV documentary some years back. It is a segment from a 52-minute show. It opens as they TRASH that appalling piece of crap "mock"umentary "Loose Change". Unfortunately, that junk has poisoned the well terribly....ALL of their wrong assertions and claims spoil it, as I see people influenced by it constantly, in these discussions. The simulator flying part begins at 4:40 ---



When Hanjour was hand-flying around in that turn, he occasionally banked as much as about 35 degrees...again, well within the airplane's normal capability, and only 5 degrees more than "comfortable" for passengers....which is why 30 is "max" for professional pilots. Main reason. At ~35 degrees of bank is when the computer recorded warning will announce "bank angle", as seen in that simulator. That, BTW, is not a Boeing 757 simulator...it is another jet, can't tell from the video what model. BUT, in terms of this type of flying, one jet is just about the same as another.


Here, the NTSB video made from that FDR information. This is the same type of video often done by NTSB, you can see examples from other airplane crash cases. Note the three "buttons" next to the control wheel image. Those indicate autopilot engagement status. The 'L' (left) A/P is engaged until Hanjour disconnected it at time 13:28:50 UTC (they used the wrong reference, there...called it 'EDT'. People wanted this done in a hurry, and they rushed it, apparently). Compare that to the chart in Figure 1.

To the left are the engine power settings, the N1 readings. (That is the main thrust provider, the big fan in front). Flight idle power is about 30-33%

Then, on right, of course airspeed, altitude, attitude indicator and heading. On the A/I, do you know how to interpret it? The little white triangle is a reference to point to the bank angle, marked by the hashes on the circumference. Each hash mark is ten degrees, in the first 30. The ones every 30 degrees are a bit longer, to make them more obvious at a glance. After the 30-degree point, they are marked at 45, 60 and 90. I see at one point he briefly reached almost 45 degrees, and quickly corrected shallower. (This is common, if he was leaning and trying to get a look ahead and to his right, to check on his aim in the turn). BTW, in our skills demonstrations in the simulator, we routinely conduct 45-degree banked turns....:



You can see for yourself, there...yes? The video stops a second or so before impact, because that data was corrupted, from the damage of impact. You can clearly see the trend, though. The rest has since been decoded more by a fellow down in Australia, Mr. Warren Stutt. He has a website, if you Google his name.....

Oh boy, another flying lesson. If I study hard enough, I wonder if I could rent a Cessna 172?

Even though I have this sudden urge to start chanting, "the cats will not be herded and the weeds will not be whacked!", it's time to set the VOR to "outta here."

reply to post by manmental


Hear, hear!

I think the OS is covering up for people, but not to the extent of controlled demolition of the towers. Just covering up for allowing the terrorists to give their 'insane, impossible ' mission ago.

Those who were "in charge" were grossly incompetent, and had a tiger by the tail (when they were egotistic enough to think they could control it). THAT is the "conspiracy" being covered up. The terrible miscalculations and mistakes made. Seems they completely underestimated what was actually being planned, and to what extent. This explanation accounts for EVERY little niggling thing that "bothers" the "truthers" ....not the extremely more and more complicated Rube Goldberg-esque "theories" that have popped up (and keep popping up).

Those are good questions. I like to take things one step at a time. First, did they fall from planes hitting them? My conclusion is "no".

My conclusion is yes with no quotation marks. as in, yes. Not "yes".

They turned literally to dust.

Literally... are you sure? To dust. Hmmm. How about obliterated to smithereens...

Plane against concrete: 'Atomized' at 500mph...

There was molten steel still burning, weeks after the fact.

Source?

Steel beams had been diagonally cut almost with surgical precision.

I bet you are referring to the photo of beams cut AFTER the collapse by the demolition crew. Please give a link to your information.

They fell at nearly a free-fall speed. That is impossible. Period. It defies the laws of physics.

Tell me these buildings don't also look like they fall at 'freefall' speed AFTER the tops collapse onto the bottom sections and pulverise them. Tell me if you see any similarities between the collapse of these (apparently) steel fame buildings and those of the towers.

History has also shown us that burning, steel buildings do NOT collapse. It has never happened.

Well said. Nor has it happened for a large passenger jet loaded with fuel to hit a building at such high speeds. Ever. First times... and look what occured. Wow.
You should look at the damage that a LIGHT B-25 bomber did at LOW speed when it hit the Empire State Building... it punched a hole (like WTC) straight through.

The impact of the planes on WTC was 100's of times more powerful than that B-25. So can you imagine the damage to those central struts.

And its proved that fire from airplane fuel weakens (not melts) stell girders and that combined with the incredible impact forces would, in my opinion provide enough weakness to initialize a collapse in one or more floors and that would cause the top down demolition we can observe in numerous videos, which looks incredibly similar to top down building demolitions.

Peace Off.

reply to post by manmental

You should look at the damage that a LIGHT B-52 bomber ....

Correction for you, there....a B-25.

reply to post by weedwhacker


It's an honour to have you applaud my post... even if I disagree with tons of your views (apollo based!)... and thanks for the correction... i like to think i assimilate and regurgitate well without checking too many facts but you've proved i should check stuff more... it helps one's arguements.

anyway... I disagree with tons of your musings... but you've made me think and reconsider lots of my thoughts... and thats why i like this site.

Are there any Pilots here on this thread that can say they have more knowledge and experience than the Pilot in the OP?
Just wondering here if anyone doubts his credentials and knowledge. Especially regarding Military procedures and what should happen and what should not happen during drills or real life situations.
I have no doubt, this man is legit.....as a few people have said on this thread already ...Google is your friend for sure.

Credentials that are verified are then rock solid, I am still waiting on an earlier poster to mention his/her credentials regarding 20 years plus in the military.
Regards, Iwinder

PS any Pilots that claim more knowledge/ experience than the Pilot in the OP, just so we can read it and believe it please post your credentials so we can compare them to the Op's Pilot.

Regards, again Iwinder

reply to post by manmental

I believe, and it is documented, that the terrorists were known about and tailed for a year before attacks, for which the targets and plan of attack by air was known in advance.
I believe the USA wanted an attack to go to war against the middle east and so allowed these 'novices' to continue..
I believe they underestimated what some terrorists could achieve with basic flying skills and religious anger.

I disagree.
The real terrorist in my opinion are a handful of insiders in the Bush administration who perhaps used a small group of military experts in demolition and aviation. This makes more sense than the OS.

What we were told by our government about the events to 911 after 10 years are now being proven as lies.

The real identities of the alleged planes. No serial numbers from wreckage?
No maintenance records available of the four airplanes?
The real identities of the alleged hijackers. FBI said hijackers were using stolen identities.
The head of the FBI Robert Muller said they will never know who the hijackers were because, they never left a paper trail.

Government Whistle blower said Bin Laden was working for the United States government until 911?
What we do know that has been proven true is CIA Intel was fabricated, OBL, to WMD.
So for anyone to claim any part of the OS is true, I would like to see the credible evidence?

You cannot prove something that never happened. The OS of 911 is a myth.

Originally posted by Alfie1
You posted this claim before and it is utter made up bunk. I proved it to you by posting a link to a Dept of Defence financial paper from March 2002. But in true "truther" tradition why let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy ?

What I stated stands as accurate. The day before 9-11, SECDEF Rumsfeld announced at a press conference that 2.3 trillion dollars of defense spending/money was unaccounted for. The **PRECISE** location of this most likely compartmentalized information was where the Pentagon was hit. The Pentagon lost hard copies, data storage and the personnel (accountants and the like) responsible for the safe keeping of this information.

We can go round and round about released defense financial papers ad infinitum, but it does not change anything about what I posted. You are merely trying to bring smoke and mirrors tricks to try to disprove what I have said by providing a DoD financial paper. Ten papers might have been released, but it changes nothing about the facts. Who even pays attention to such papers unless you're in the DoD ---until there is a press conference by someone notable, like the SECDEF.

And, unless you're from Britain, the word is spelled "defenSe" --with an "s," just to let you know. Hey, if you're a Brit, then cheers, my apologies. If not, just trying to help out.

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
Another high-level military official, who appears to have quite the credentials and background,

When it comes to 9/11 Trutherism, "credentials and background" most times do not equate to competency and logic. I could care less how many flight hours or combat missions or aeronautical engineering degrees or boxer shorts someone has if they are unable to understand the demonstrably clear events of 9/11.