Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Key 9/11 Question: Do You Think the 9/11 Hijackers Were Competent to Fly?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-20-05 02:36 PM
Original message
Poll question: Key 9/11 Question: Do You Think the 9/11 Hijackers Were Competent to Fly?
This is an absolutely key 9/11 question to the extent of the 9/11 conspiracy: were the 9/11 terrorist hijackers competent to fly huge Boeing jets hundreds of miles and navigate them to their targets, without the aid of the autopilot?

Remember, not only did the hijackers have to navigate the planes largely by geographic landmarks, then steer the planes precisely into the WTC towers and Pentagon, but they also had to descend 10,000-20,000 feet in the course of their piloting. This is not a simple feat. None of the hijackers pilots were described as particularly good pilots by their flight instructors, and several were thought to be very weak pilots. None of the hijackers pilots were known to have flown any sort of large jet airplane before.

If you think the hijackers WERE competent enough to fly into the targets, please give a reason why you think so.

Thanks!

Sorry, polls are turned off at Level 3.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-20-05 02:39 PM
Response to Original message
1. Why were they competent enough?
Edited on Sun Feb-20-05 02:39 PM by LARED
They succeeded
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-20-05 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. How do you know "they" succeeded?
You are using circular logic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-20-05 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Let try real logic
not only did the hijackers have to navigate the planes largely by geographic landmarks, then steer the planes precisely into the WTC towers and Pentagon, but they also had to descend 10,000-20,000 feet in the course of their piloting. This is not a simple feat.

Navigating by landmarks is not exactly difficult if you are looking for a building 1350 feet in the air at the end of a river. To find the WTC's it's easy. When heading East make sharp right at Hudson river. Follow river until you see WTC towers. Aim plane at WTC. If you are not following the river a quick look at most maps tells you Newark Airport is just west of the WTC. The New York City skyline does stick up in the air quite a bit and is a bit smoggy. It's not hard to find on a clear autumn day. DC is more difficult, but not by much

Descending a plane in flight is not difficult. I've never flown a plane in my life (and have sleep in a holiday inn), but I think you push the stick forward a little and the plane descends. Pull it back and it levels off. It ain't rocket science

Taking off and landing jets is difficult, something none of the hijackers needed to do.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ezlivin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-20-05 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Flying by landmarks is a bit harder than it seems
I earned my Private Pilot's license back in '93. One of the things my CFI did was get me up into the air and get me lost. I had charts, had plotted the course, it was clear weather, we were at 2,500 ft AGL and I could see landmarks. However, it was very easy to confuse one landmark for another. Even at a lazy ground speed of only about 100 knots, things were behind me before I knew it.

At FL 30 (or whatever altitude they were at when they took over) it would be much more difficult to fly using VFR. And these guys were in an extremely complex aircraft, at altitude and cruising speed with the Flight Director already programmed. They had to properly disengage the FD, take control manually (or reprogram the FD) and descend using VFR.

I'm not saying it's not possible, but that it is more difficult that we might imagine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StrafingMoose Donating Member (742 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-05 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #6
89. Well, it's easier...


when NORAD's not on your ass!

:D

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-20-05 11:19 PM
Response to Reply #5
12. Logic would say they couldn't see Manhattan-- even the WTC from
upstate New York-- which is where the hijacking took place. And none of them went down the Hudson actually.


Descending a loaded jumbo jet is much trickier than you make out-- it is not a video game.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gbwarming Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-05 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #12
23. Please describe the difficulty in descending
I don't see why this is more complicated than descent in a light twin engined aircraft. I'm talking about the actual descent here, not ATC procedures and ensuring the passengers a comfortable, safe, on-time arrival which the alleged hijackers needn't have worried about.

Why couldn't they just reduce power while trimming for speed to establish the desired descent rate?

While you're at it, why couldn't they have used the autopilot or FMCS for navigation? They wouldn't have to master the intricacies of gate to gate flight planning, just how to enter a direct course for KDCA or KJKF. They had manuals and some simulator training.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NecessaryOnslaught Donating Member (691 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-20-05 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
2. Yes.
On 9/11 Rube Goldberg stabbed Occam in the back with a rusty shiv.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-20-05 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. that sort of sounds like you mean they WEREN'T competent enough...
but I like the analogy!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-20-05 06:01 PM
Response to Original message
7. let us not forget
Let's not forget the possible complications involved in overtaking the crew with "boxcutters". Here's three considerations
1. Does not the cockpit have an axe?
2. Could not the pilot tilt the plane to deter the boxcutter wielding "hiackers" from entering the cockpit area?
3. Working under the assumption the passengers and crew would not put up any resistance
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-20-05 11:12 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. Yes-- this has always been a weak-link in my mind.
It is well on impossible to believe that they could take over four cockpits the way they were supposed to, but not have one pilot alert ATC of a hijacking-- not even punch in the hijack code.

Then we have MercutioATC who comes to this board, who seems to completely buy the whole official story, for reasons I don't completely understand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-05 12:30 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. Flight 93
Especially Flight 93 that was informed of the other hijackings as early as 9:00 and yet there is no hijack alert? They would have locked the cockpit doors and yet no hijack code?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-05 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. well, there was a "mayday" call from flight 93-- which is more than
what happened on the other flights. But I am still amazed the hijackers could enter and take over the cockpits without more alarm going off.

Not to mention in that a couple of the flights, you have to think a flight attendent would try to stop them from going to the cockpit, and we know flight attendents were stabbed. But if there was a struggle, I don't know why the cockpit wouldn't have been alerted.

None of it makes sense to me.

I still wonder if the whole thing was some sort of weird staged "hijacking drill".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ScaRBama Donating Member (107 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-20-05 08:10 PM
Response to Original message
8. I wonder if they played.....
video games......Flight Sims?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-20-05 09:09 PM
Response to Original message
9. Were the 9/11 ORIGINAL PILOTS Competent enough to Fly?
Check out their FAA qualifications.
Check out the minimum requirements for the position of pilot
or co-pilot,
at their respective airlines.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-20-05 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Wha? Are you serious?
PLease tell us more.

I don't have time to go looking that up if you know the answer.
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-20-05 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. A beginning....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-05 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. Sorry, I can't find the info you are referring to
But there is some weirdness about United not knowing their own pilots.

Could you perhaps paste in the relevant info here? Thanks much!

And sometime, Dulce, I would love to hear what your theory of all this is. Perhaps you could PM me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-05 12:38 AM
Response to Reply #10
15. DulceDecorum is wrong
The link DulceDecorum provides is actually not the correct one - you have to go to one of the links in the OP (The pilots and the planes) in order to see the discussion.

As I pointed out here, I have checked this against several pilots that I know and DulceDecorum's theory is incorrect. I have explained how DulceDecorum could double-check my work, but the presence of this argument in this thread indicates that such double-checking has not yet occurred.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sweet Pea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-05 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. Dulce...
seems to be smitten with the belief that ALL databases, federal or otherwise, are in a constant state of perfectness.

what-EV-er....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-05 02:20 AM
Response to Reply #16
29. Sweet Pea
seems to be smitten with the belief that ALL databases, federal or otherwise, are not to be trusted if a rightwingnut GOPUSA pimp such as Bobby Eberle says otherwise.

what-EV-er....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-05 02:16 AM
Response to Reply #15
28. Things you did not know about Victor Saracini.
DulceDecorum says:
From the media and the FAA airman registry database,
we learn that Victor Saracini met his wife Ellen Hildebrand Saracini,
while he was working as a flight instructor at Louisiana Tech from 1980-82
despite the fact that FAA records clearly demonstrate that
he did not get his flight instructors license until 1992,
which is over ten years later.
Saracini first FAA cert is that of a Mechanic airframe power-plant and was issued on 10/22/1983 which is one whole year after he gave up teaching at Louisiana Tech.

AZCat says:
The FAA airman registry database does not list the original dates of the certificates, but instead lists the most recent version of each certificate. The Mechanic Airframe power-plant certificate for Mr. Saracini was last issued on 10/22/1983.
I checked this by running queries on several people I know who have been instructors for years, and the certificate listings for them are only the most recent ones.
This is logical, because if Mr. Saracini stopped being an instructor, he would have had little reason to keep his certificates up to date.

The FAA says:
Victor John Saracini
Med First 4/2001 Must have available glasses for near vision
DOI 2/15/94 ATP multi engine land commercial single engine private single engine
A/A320 A/B747-4 A/B757 A/B767 A/CA-212
DOI 5/20/1992 Flight instructor airplane single multi engine land instrument aeroplane
DOI 4/14/1986 Flight engineer turbojet-powered
DOI 1/30/1984 Ground instructor advanced instrument
DOI 10/22/1983 Mechanic airframe power-plant
http://162.58.35.241/aadatabase/login.asp

Ellen Hildebrand Saracini says:
Victor Saracini also possessed a life-long love of learning, she said. He served in the Navy, where he trained as a pilot; he earned a bachelor's degree in general studies from New Mexico Tech in 1976; and he took engineering, science and music classes while at Louisiana Tech.
"Victor was very intelligent," Mrs. Saracini said. "He would have been a student his whole life long if he was able to."
She chose Louisiana Tech to sponsor the scholarship because she wanted it to be associated with a four-year degree program.
Plus, she said, "He enjoyed flying and teaching there" at Tech.
She herself had earned a two-year associate degree in science and aviation technology from St. Petersburg Junior College before enrolling at Tech with plans to obtain her flight instructor's rating.
One of her flight instructors from Florida, Pete Maniscalco, had since become an instructor at Tech and introduced her to Victor Saracini.
"I met Vic and I guess we both fell in love pretty quickly," she recalled. "He got a job in Pennsylvania, and we both moved there."
He was a New Jersey native; she, a New York native who moved to Florida at an early age.
http://www.latech.edu/newspublisher/news/news-archive-a...

Dale Sistrunk,
head of the Louisiana Tech aviation department says:
Victor Saracini, the pilot of United Airlines Flight 175 that crashed into the World Trade Center South Tower, was a student at Tech in 1982.
According to the Sept. 21 issue of The (Monroe) News-Star, Saracini was at Tech for several quarters in order to build up flight time that allowed him to become a commercial pilot. Saracini did not graduate from Tech, however.
"No one (in the department) knew about (Saracini being a former student) until alumni told us," Dale Sistrunk, head of the aviation department, said. "He came here in 1982, before I got here."
http://eb.journ.latech.edu/archives/fall01/1004/output/...

No, no, Dale. You got it wrong.
Victor Saracini was TEACHING at Louisiana Tech......
Saracini was a flight instructor at Louisiana Tech from 1980-82. His widow, Ellen Hildebrand Saracini, said she established the scholarship to commemorate his love of flying.
http://www.tnonline.com/archives/news/2002/08.27/911.ht...

.... BEFORE he enrolled as a student at Louisiana Tech.
Victor worked as a flight instructor at the university. While he was a student in the aviation program in 1981, he and Ellen fell in love. They have two daughters, Kirsten, 15, and Brielle, 12.
To donate to the Victor Saracini Flight Scholarship, contact Dale Sistrunk at the LTU Professional Aviation Department, P.O. Box 3181 TS, Ruston, LA 71272.
http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/113-09112003-157...
.... and everyone agrees that he LEFT sometime in 1982.

PALM HARBOR -- Like tens of millions of Americans, Bernard and Bernadette Hildebrand watched in horror Tuesday as television networks played and replayed the image of United Airlines Flight 175 crashing into the south tower of the World Trade Center.
From the first, they hoped the Boeing 767 wasn't being flown by their son-in-law, pilot Victor J. Saracini.
But when they called their daughter and son-in-law's home in Lower Makefield, Pa., a United employee answered. He passed the phone to one of their other daughters, who delivered the grim news:
Saracini, 51, was the captain of the plane, which carried 65 passengers and crew.
"In the beginning, you absolutely cannot imagine that it would be your son-in-law," said Mrs. Hildebrand, 75, a retired bank manager. Over and over, she said, she kept asking, "Are they sure?"
"You dreaded admitting that you knew," said her husband, 75, a retired salesman.
On Wednesday, the couple, who have lived in Palm Harbor for about eight years, ..
http://www.stpetersburgtimes.com/News/091301/TampaBay/P...
Bernard Hildebrand, 75, retired salesman.
Bernadette Hidebrand, 75, retired bank manager.
Hmmmm, if in 2001,
they had only lived in Palm Harbor for eight years,
then the Hildebrands only moved there in about 1993.
Victor must have felt very close to Mom & Pop Hildebrand
since he gave this address to the FAA.
3227 MACGREGOR DR
PALM HARBOR FL 34684

OK,
lets find out more about high school drop-out
who was born on August 29, 1950.
AFL-CIO says:
Vic served, to those of us who knew him, as a symbol of where hard work and determination can lead, says Schaccfman, describing Saracini as a man who worked his way up to Navy Aviation Officer Candidate School years after dropping out of high school.
Saracini ultimately became a proud ALPA member, says Frank Lyons, a friend and United pilot co-worker. Saracinis big break as a pilot came in 1985 after he applied for a job at United. That year, when ALPA members went on strike, the airline notified 574 pilots on its applicants list they would get the striking pilots jobs if they crossed the picket lines. Saracini and 569 other pilots refused and became known as the United 570. He was hired by United after the strike.
http://www.aflcio.org/aboutaflcio/magazine/union_heroes...

New Mexico Tech says:
Victor J. Saracini (76, Bachelor of General Studies) was the captain of United Airlines flight 175 that was taken over by hijackers on Sept. 11, 2001, and crashed into one of the World Trade Center Buildings. After Vic graduated from Tech, he served in the Navy, where he trained as a pilot. He worked for United for about 16 years.
http://infohost.nmt.edu/mainpage/alumni/sept11.html

Congress finds the following:
(1) Victor J. Saracini was an esteemed, decorated officer with the United States Navy, ending his military career in the Naval Reserve at Naval Air Station Willow Grove, Pennsylvania.
(2) Joining United Airlines in 1985, Mr. Saracini worked his way up the ranks to captain of the United Airline's Boeing 757-767 fleet.
(3) Victor Saracini was the captain of United Airlines Flight 175, one of the four commercial jets hijacked by terrorists on September 11, 2001.
(4) At 9:05 a.m., the Los Angeles-bound airplane flew into the South Tower of the World Trade Center, killing all people onboard, including Captain Victor Saracini.
(5) On September 11, 2001, the United States lost Victor Saracini, a devoted aviator, a distinguished veteran, and a proud defender of America's freedom.
http://www.theorator.com/bills108/hr1128.html
http://www.theorator.com/bills108/s615.html

Jack G. Schachtman of Yardley, PA says:
It was the fall of 1975. The Vietnam War was over. Bruce Springsteen had just come out with his album "Born to Run." We were newly commissioned officers, Ensigns in The United States Navy. We were in Pensacola, Florida; home of Naval Aviation. ......
Here is where I met Victor Saracini.
We began training by having to pass a number of physical tests. These included a timed distance run partially through sand, an obstacle course, and swimming a mile in a flight suit. These tests were interspersed between classes we attended learning how an airplane works. After all, that is why we were there in the first place. During this initial training all "studs" were required to live in the BOQ (Bachelor Officers Quarters). These quarters were essentially dorm rooms.
After completing the initial phase of training, we were split up by groups. Vic and I were in the group destined to become Naval Flight Officers (NFO). .....
Vic, Billy "Whiteshoes" Johnson and I got an apartment on Pensacola Beach. While it was close enough to the base, it provided an oasis for us to escape the rigors and pressure of this intense flight training. .....
Vic, Billy, and I completed our NFO training in June of 1976. We received our wings at a ceremony held in the Naval Aviation Museum on N.A.S. Pensacola. After seeing many of our fellow students wash out during all phases of our training, we were so proud to finally get our wings.
From that point we all moved on. I moved to San Diego and became a Tactical Coordinator on an S-3A. I lost track of Vic and Billy.
http://www.victorsaracini.com/u_s__navy.htm

Just in case you are wondering,
there really does appear to be someone by that name.
CAS & Associates
Carol Schachtman
Jack Schachtman
Yardley, PA
19067
Operating States: DE, NJ, PA
Service Area: Philadelphia, S.New Jersey,Del
Some us really DO double check these characters.
Which brings us back to 1976.

Victor Saracini completed his Naval Flight officer training in Pensacola, Florida in June 1976?
But-- but New Mexico Tech says that he received a Bachelor of General Studies from them that same year.
Aw heck,
if Mohammed Atta could manage to be in two places at the same time,
then why the heck should I complain when
a home-grown boy pulls off the same trick.
Atta-boy Victor!!

Victor Saracini and Jack G. Schachtman of Yardley, PA lost contact when Jack moved to San Diego and became a Tactical Coordinator on an S-3A.
That is really sad because
Ted and Lynn Clough say:
Lynn and I have some great memories of Vic. I first met him when we were going through S-3A training at VS-41 in San Diego in 1976.
http://www.victorsaracini.com/u_s__navy.htm

Oh well,
moving right along...

We became great friends, especially when we found out we were both going to VS-22. We both arrived on the Saratoga mid-cruise in 1977 and roomed together in an 8-man bunk room. .....
Vic and I rented a house together, and Lynn and I even lived there with him for a few months after getting married in March, 1978. ....
We left on another 6-month cruise later that year and again were roommates, this time in a 6-man bunk room. By then I was an aircraft commander (pilot) and Vic was a mission commander (NFO), so we flew many times together .....
When we returned from that cruise, Vic set about preparing for his second aviation career as a pilot. I give him a lot of credit for working his way up through his ratings in his off time, building time riding, instructing, flying corporate and eventually commuters before he got hired by United.
This was not a good time in the airline world and there were thousands of pilots on furlough as a result of deregulation from 1980 until hiring started to pick up around 1985. We parted ways when Vic left active duty and Jacksonville, but kept in touch with Christmas cards and e-mails over the years.
We were horrified along with the rest of the world after the events of Sept 11, but even more so when we heard that Vic was one of the Captains. Ironically, the Capt of the American flight that hit the Pentagon , Chic Burlingame was also in an F-4 squadron on that first cruise on the Saratoga, so we both knew him also.
http://www.victorsaracini.com/u_s__navy.htm

So,
Victor Saracini was a member of VS-22....

On January 6, 1976, after 22 years of flying the S-2 Tracker, VS-22 sailed from NAS Mayport, Florida to the Mediterranean Sea onboard USS SARATOGA as the first deployed S-3A Viking squadron.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/vs-2...
On 1 Apr 1973, VS-22 joined Air Antisubmarine Wing ONE, the precursor of Sea Control Wing, U.S. Atlantic Fleet. On 8 Nov 1973, VS-22 transferred to NAS Cecil Field, FL and on 6 Jan 1976, after 22 years of flying the S-2, VS-22 became the first deployed S-3A Viking squadron.
http://www02.clf.navy.mil/vs22/History/command_history....

USS Saratoga says:
On September 11, 2001, Chic Burlingame, captain of American Airlines Flight 77 that was en route from Dulles International Airport near Washington to Los Angeles, was killed when his airplane was deliberately crashed by terrorists into the southwest face of the Pentagon E ring. Burlingame served aboard USS SARATOGA in the 1970s as a pilot with VF 103 - the Sluggers.
Another Saratoga pilot was brutally murdered by the terrorist attack on September 11. Victor Saracini was the Captain of United Airlines Flight 175, a Boeing 767 bound from Boston to Los Angeles. This plane was crashed into the south tower of the World Trade Center shortly after 9 a.m. ET.
http://www.saratogamuseum.org/911.html

Ahh,
Burlingame was a member of VF 103 aka the Sluggers.


http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-squadron-vf103.htm

And THIS
is what Mr. Charles Burlingame III is alleged to have made a habit of flying.
Ooh look. AA. And a lightening bolt down the middle.


http://www.almansur.com/jollyrogers/bravoturkeys.htm

We will get back to Burlingame on some other day.
We have not finished with Mister Victor.

It must have been very difficult to find people willing to become military pilots in the mid seventies.
I say that because both Victor Saracini and Chic Burlingame has miserable vision -- at least according to their FAA rap-sheets.
Nevertheless, lets check out the planes they were flying in their Navy days.

The Navy's ES-3A is a high winged, jet powered, twin engine, carrier-based electronic reconnaissance mission aircraft equipped with folding wings, a launch bar, and a tailhook. The heart of the Shadow is an avionics suite based on the Aries II system of the land-based EP-3E Orion. The Shadow's fuselage is packed with sensor stations and processing equipment, and the exterior sports over 60 antennae. The ES-3A Shadow crew is comprised of a pilot, an NFO, and two systems operators. Advanced sensor, navigation and communications systems allow the ES-3A's four-person crew to collect extensive data, and distribute that high-quality information through a variety of channels to the carrier battle group. This gives the battle group commander a clear picture of potential airborne, surface and sub-surface threats.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/es-3_shado...
FOLDING WINGS?
Then that thing can collapse itself like a Swiss Army knife.
So THAT's where the Penta-wings went. Oops sorry. Wrong plane.

TIMELINE
VICTOR JOHN SARACINI
Must have available glasses for near vision

1976 Graduates from New Mexico Tech with Bachelor of General Studies.
1976 JUNE Graduated from Naval Officer Training in Pensacola, Florida.
1976 Commenced S-3A training at VS-41 in San Diego, California.
1977 Arrived mid-cruise on the USS Saratoga.
1978 Second trip on USS Saratoga as mission commander(NFO) for Vs-22.
1980-85 Thousands of pilots on furlough as a result of deregulation.

DOI 10/22/1983 Mechanic airframe power-plant.
1985 Vic began his career at United as a DC-8 Flight Engineer.
DOI 1/30/1984 Ground instructor advanced instrument
DOI 4/14/1986 Flight engineer turbojet-powered
1989 upgraded to First Officer on the Boeing 757/767 fleet.
DOI 5/20/1992 Flight instructor single & multi engine instrument
DOI 2/15/94 ATP multi engine, A/A320 A/B747-4 A/B757 A/B767 A/CA-212
commercial & private single engine
1998 Vic moved back to the Boeing 767/757 fleet as a Captain.
2001 SEPTEMBER Disappeared without trace.

There are discrepancies.
Apparently Victor was teaching
long before he acquired his Flight Instructor certificate
and he also appears to have been flying passenger transport
long before he received his Airline Transport Pilot certificate.

DulceDecorum stands by the initial posting.
There is NO reason whatsoever for Victor Saracini to have placed himself in the position of having expired certificates and we are told that he worked diligently to better himself and improve his civil aviation skills.
Furthermore the FAA states CLEARLY on the website that DOI stands for Date of INITIAL Issue.

DulceDecorum hereby calls upon AZCat to retract:
I have explained how DulceDecorum could double-check my work, but the presence of this argument in this thread indicates that such double-checking has not yet occurred.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-05 07:12 AM
Response to Reply #28
30. I applaud you for your work on Victor Saracini
But I see you have still failed to double-check my work.

I have checked this using pilots whose records (the paper copies - not a database) were in front of me. It is a simple thing for me to do because I work around thousands of pilot records and the records of maybe 150 instructors so I understand if you are lacking the resources necessary to check this out.

But the truth is very simple: I am right and you are wrong, and all the background research on Mr. Saracini won't change that.

Regarding the FAA statement, here is what they have to say about dates on certificates:
Question
Why cant I get my original date of issue on a replacement for my certificate (license)? How would I prove to a potential employer that I had my certificate long before the date of issue?

Answer
Date of Issue
The date of issue on an airman certificate must correspond to the date the current Administrator signs it. To be valid, it must also be consistent with our current certificate format.
</snip>

So let's get this straight - when the FAA issues a new certificate, it has a new DOI on it, not the date that the original certificate was issued. This happens with replacements for lost certificates and with certificates that are issued when someone requalifies for that certificate.

Again, you are wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-05 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #30
31. Once more into the breach
The FAA says:
Victor John Saracini
Med First 4/2001 Must have available glasses for near vision
DOI 2/15/94 ATP multi engine land commercial single engine private single engine
A/A320 A/B747-4 A/B757 A/B767 A/CA-212
DOI 5/20/1992 Flight instructor airplane single multi engine land instrument aeroplane
DOI 4/14/1986 Flight engineer turbojet-powered
DOI 1/30/1984 Ground instructor advanced instrument
DOI 10/22/1983 Mechanic airframe power-plant
http://162.58.35.241/aadatabase/login.asp


QUESTION:
Why cant I get my original date of issue on a replacement for my certificate (license)? How would I prove to a potential employer that I had my certificate long before the date of issue?
ANSWER:
Date of Issue
The date of issue on an airman certificate must correspond to the date the current Administrator signs it. To be valid, it must also be consistent with our current certificate format.
Employment Verification
You should not use the date of issue as employment verification. A certified copy of your complete airman certification records will verify the date you got your mechanic certificate and rating(s).
Request a Copy of Your Records
To request a copy of your airman records, download and send this form or send a signed, written request with your:
full name (as it appears on the certificate/please print),
your date of birth,
place of birth, social security number,
certificate number,
class of certificate,
street address, city, state,
zip code and
a check or money order for $10 (U.S. funds)
made payable to the FAA.
Mail to:
FAA Airmen Certification Branch
AFS-760
P.O. Box 25082
Oklahoma City, OK 73125-0082
We will send you a refund if the cost for copying your airman certification records is less than $10.

NOTE: the question pertains to REPLACEMENTS for the original certificate.
AZCat, you are assuming that Victor Saracini had to REPLACE his ORIGINAL certificates.
How would he have lost them?
were they revoked?

REAPPLYING FOR REVOKED CERTIFICATES
Question
If FAA revokes my certificate (license), how long must I wait to reapply?
Answer
Certificate revocations last one year. Reapply for your certificate as if you were applying for your first certificate. You must receive training and instructor endorsements and must pass knowledge (written) and practical tests. However, your previous experience counts.

MY CERTIFICATES WERE STOLEN. CAN I STILL INSTRUCT?
Question
My certificates were stolen. Can I still instruct without my licenses and medical certificates with me?
Answer
No, you cannot instruct without the appropriate certificate(s) in your possession. (Under 14 CFR 61.3, Requirement for certificates, ratings, and authorizations, "A person may not act as pilot in command or in any other capacity as a required pilot flight crewmember... unless that person has a valid pilot certificate or special purpose pilot authorization... in that person's physical possession or readily accessible in the aircraft when exercising the privileges of that pilot certificate or authorization.") While the normal processing time for replacing certificates is four to six weeks, the FAA Civil Aviation Registry can fax you a record of your certificate(s) that is valid for 60 days--more than enough time to receive the permanent copies. To receive this fax, call the registry at 405-954-3261, select option #1 to reach the Airmen Registry, then option #0 to speak with an examiner. When requesting the fax, be sure to state that you want a record of your medical certificate to be included.
Procedures for replacing lost certificates are described at:
http://registry.faa.gov/airmen.asp#ReplacementofCertifi...
For further questions about this topic please contact the Civil Aviation Registry by email at airmen@registry.jccbi.gov

I LOST MY PILOT'S LICENSE AND MEDICAL CERTIFICATE. CAN I USE THE PRIVILEGES OF MY PILOT'S LICENSE WHILE WAITING FOR REPLACEMENTS?
Question
I lost my Pilot's License and Medical Certificate. Can I use the privileges of my Pilot's license while waiting for replacements?
Answer
Yes, you can request a Temporary Authority to use the privileges of your license. You can request both the Temporary Authority and a replacement license at the same time. .....

Take another good hard look at the record of Victor Saracini.
Victor John Saracini
Med First 4/2001 Must have available glasses for near vision
DOI 2/15/94 ATP multi engine land commercial single engine private single engine
A/A320 A/B747-4 A/B757 A/B767 A/CA-212
DOI 5/20/1992 Flight instructor airplane single multi engine land instrument aeroplane
DOI 4/14/1986 Flight engineer turbojet-powered
DOI 1/30/1984 Ground instructor advanced instrument
DOI 10/22/1983 Mechanic airframe power-plant
http://162.58.35.241/aadatabase/login.asp

According to AZCat's theory,
Victor must have had his ATP pilot license replaced at least once.
The Temporary Authority is valid for 60 days, While the normal processing time for replacing certificates is four to six weeks.
Yet the lapse is more than one year from the flight instructor and TEN whole years from the ground instructor flying certificate dates of issue.
Since his instructor credentials are dependent on his FLYING credentials, then it stands to reason that he had to go back to square one if ATP license was revoked or remained out of standing for over one year.
But that did not happen.
He continuously flew for United Airlines from 1985 to 2001 despite the fact that his ATP is dated 1994.

In the cockpit was Victor Saracini, a former Navy pilot who lived outside Philadelphia, according to a family spokesman and United employee Frank Lyons. Saracini, 51, had been flying commercial jets for about 16 years, his in-laws, Bernard F. and Bernadette G. Hildebrand, told the Philadelphia Inquirer.
http://www.pamelaferdinand.com/wp_0017.html
http://legacy.com/LegacyTribute/Sept11.asp?Page=Tribute...

Victor Saracini's FAA record remains inexplicable in the face of FAA regulations.

TIMELINE
VICTOR JOHN SARACINI
Must have available glasses for near vision

1976 Graduates from New Mexico Tech with Bachelor of General Studies.
1976 JUNE Graduated from Naval Officer Training in Pensacola, Florida.
1976 Commenced S-3A training at VS-41 in San Diego, California.
1977 Arrived mid-cruise on the USS Saratoga.
1978 Second trip on USS Saratoga as mission commander(NFO) for Vs-22.
1980-85 Thousands of pilots on furlough as a result of deregulation.
1980-82 Teacher?Student? at Louisiana Tech. Meets Ellen Hildebrand.
DOI 10/22/1983 Mechanic airframe power-plant.
1985 Vic began his career at United as a DC-8 Flight Engineer.
DOI 1/30/1984 Ground instructor advanced instrument
DOI 4/14/1986 Flight engineer turbojet-powered
1989 upgraded to First Officer on the Boeing 757/767 fleet.
DOI 5/20/1992 Flight instructor single & multi engine instrument
DOI 2/15/94 ATP multi engine, A/A320 A/B747-4 A/B757 A/B767 A/CA-212
commercial & private single engine
1998 Vic moved back to the Boeing 767/757 fleet as a Captain.
2001 SEPTEMBER Disappeared without trace.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gbwarming Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-05 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. Wow, Chuck Yeager just got his license in July 2003 - according to you
Edited on Wed Feb-23-05 12:46 PM by gbwarming
Who knew. All those 60 years he flew without one. And Dick Rutan too - only got his in October 2003. Flew around the world without a license - according to you. And Patty Wagstaff was allowed on the US Aerobatic team six years even though she only earned her certificate in June 2002.

# 1996 Top Scoring US Pilot at World Aerobatic Championships
# 1985-1996 Member, U.S. Aerobatic Team
# 1995 Recipient, ICAS Sword of Excellence Award
# 1993 International Aerobatic Club Champion
# Us National Aerobatic Champion
1991, 1992, 1993 US National Aerobatic Championships
# 1990/1992/1994 Top US Medal Winner, World Aerobatic Championships
# 1987 Rolly Cole Memorial Award for Contributions to Sport Aerobatics

Dulce, your method is BS. I don't think you're fooling anybody.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-05 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. This can only establish that Chuck Yeager
is part of the 9/11 conspiracy.

Dang it, I really liked him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sweet Pea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-05 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. Ouch
n/t...lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-05 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #32
37. Thank you for double-checking
See how easy this is? It doesn't take much to confirm what I have been saying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gbwarming Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-05 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. Sure, No problem
Like you, I also personally know pilots whose initial certificates were issued before the DOI shown in the database.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-05 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #38
41. Pilots like Bobby Eberle?
Or would that be Bruce?

What the heck,
I am sure that Gannon guy could get up pretty high.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-05 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #32
39. Post their stats from the FAA -- if you DARE
Anyone can EASILY VERIFY or dispute what I post.
I give the LINKS.

WHERE did you get YOUR info?
Talon News?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gbwarming Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-05 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #39
42. Why, so you can ignore it like last time?
I posted the complete hijacker info from the database at your request and you ignored it. Anyone interested can go to the FAA airmans database http://162.58.35.241/aadatabase/login.asp and look up, for example, Charles Elwood Yeager.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 12:59 AM
Response to Reply #42
47. Home run for DulceDecorum
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sweet Pea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-05 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #39
45. OK, Dear Dulce.....I will
Dick Rutan, fighter and test pilot, recordsetting pilot, aircraft designer and inventor. According to YOU his certification wasn't INITIAL until 2003
(from one of your earlier posts: "Furthermore the FAA states CLEARLY on the website that DOI stands for Date of INITIAL Issue."):

RICHARD GLENN RUTAN

Address
Street 2833 DELMAR AVE
City MOJAVE State CALIFORNIA
County KERN Zip Code 93501-1113
Country UNITED STATES
Medical

Medical Class : Second Medical Date: 08/2004

# MUST WEAR CORRECTIVE LENSES FOR NEAR AND DISTANT VISION.

DOI : 10/17/2003 (my emphasis)
Certificate: COMMERCIAL PILOT
Rating(s):

COMMERCIAL PILOT
AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND
AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE SEA
AIRPLANE MULTIENGINE LAND
INSTRUMENT AIRPLANE
GLIDER
LIGHTER-THAN-AIR FREE BALLOON
Page 2

DOI : 02/08/2004
Certificate: FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR
Rating(s):

FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR
AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE
INSTRUMENT AIRPLANE
Page 3

DOI : 11/06/1977
Certificate: MECHANIC
Rating(s):

MECHANIC
AIRFRAME
POWERPLANT

Link: http://162.58.35.241/aadatabase/login.asp

Type in your OWN info on the initial login, then on the next screen type in the name of the individual whose record you would like to peruse.

I don't think even Talon News would go with the accusation that Dick Rutan never received his INITIAL commercial license until 2003 or his INITIAL flight instructor qualification until 2004 or even his INITIAL flight mechanic cert until 1977.

But....you go ahead and keep claiming that CAPT Saracini had fouled up certifications.

In the meantime, could you tell us when exactly Vic Saracini graduated from New Mexico Tech (as in month?)? And how long is Aviation Officer Candidate School? And how long was the NFO training he had prior to heading out the the S-3 RAG (VS 41) in California? And what is the difference between a NFO and a Pilot? And did Chick Burlingame fly that type aircraft (F-14) as you pictured in your last post or did he only fly F-4 Phantoms with VF-84? (hint: VF-84's first cruise in Tomcats (which is what your picture is of) was in 1977 which is when Burlingame left the active duty Navy....so you are wrong...he never flew F-14s.)

(I can't stop...)

It must have been very difficult to find people willing to become military pilots in the mid seventies. I say that because both Victor Saracini and Chic Burlingame has (sic) miserable vision -- at least according to their FAA rap-sheets.

I can say with as close to 100% certainty as can be legally stated that in the mid 70's one needed perfect uncorrected 20/20 vision to become a naval aviator...as one needed in the 1980's and in the 90's and in the decades prior. I don't suppose it ever occurred to Dulce that as one gets older eyesight sometimes gets worse and that the FAA (not MILITARY, mind you) has less stringent medical requirement - eyesight CORRECTABLE back to 20/20 is acceptable - much less stringent that the initial eyesight requirements stipulated by the Navy. Linking an FAA eyesight requirement to Navy eyesight requirement when they are 25 years apart and by two totally separate and different organizations is pretty stupid.

I sure hope your job doesn't rest on accurate and coherent discussion.

I've said this before....one needs to be wary of trying to become an expert on things and discuss such things at this level based only on GOOGLE hits.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #45
49. Now you hurt my wickle fee-wings
And you gave us the best explanation for
all four pilots FAA certificate discrepancies
that we will probably ever see from anyone on your side of the fence.
_________
Flight 11
_________
JOHN ALEXANDER OGONOWSKI
Flight Engineer Certificate Issued 7/10/1978
ATP Certificate Issued 5/13/1997
Hired by AA in 1978, he then returned to Texas for flight training.
http://www.alliedpilots.org/Public/GoneWest/Memorial/by...

__________
Flight 77
__________
CHARLES FRANK BURLINGAME III
Flight Engineer Certificate Issued 9/11/1996
ATP Certificate Issued 9/11/1996
He stayed active in the Navy Reserves, rising to the rank of Captain, even after he began his career with AA in 1979. http://www.alliedpilots.org/Public/GoneWest/Memorial/by...

__________
Flight 93
__________
JASON MATTHEW DAHL
Flight Engineer Certificate Issued 9/20/1985
ATP Certificate Issued 12/17/1999
United Airlines hired him in 1985.
"He was very excited," she said.
Dahl moved to Colorado in 1989 and was promoted to captain in 1992.
http://www.dailyillini.com/sep01/sep19/news/stories/cam...
Just five years after his 1980 graduation, Jason was hired by United Airlines. Soon he was training other pilots.
http://www.engr.sjsu.edu/avtech/dahl.htm
Flight instructor Certificate Issued 8/2001 Valid only when accompanied by Pilot cert no. Expires 31 Aug 2003

___________
Flight 175
___________
VICTOR JOHN SARACINI
Flight Engineer Certificate Issued 4/14/1986
ATP Certificate Issued 2/15/94
Saracinis big break as a pilot came in 1985 after he applied for a job at United. That year, when ALPA members went on strike, the airline notified 574 pilots on its applicants list they would get the striking pilots jobs if they crossed the picket lines. Saracini and 569 other pilots refused and became known as the United 570. He was hired by United after the strike.
http://www.aflcio.org/aboutaflcio/magazine/union_heroes...

Boohoo.
:cry:

And here I thought there was something suspicious about
all those pilots getting their flying credentials
YEARS AFTER they were hired as PILOTS by their respective airlines.
Thanks for pointing out my error, Mr. Sweet Pea.
Now, would you mind please tying my shoes?
I would do it myself only I cannot see any better than three of them.
:cry: :cry: :cry:

RICHARD GLENN RUTAN
DOI : 11/06/1977 Certificate: MECHANIC
DOI : 10/17/2003 Certificate: COMMERCIAL PILOT
DOI : 02/08/2004 Certificate: FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR

That poor poor TEST PILOT!!
He got his FAA mechanic certificate in 1977.
And then he got his FAA commercial pilot license in 2003.
And he only just got a FAA flight instructor certificate in 2004.

Who knew that Dick Rutan had been flying commercial jets for all these years?
And he still does not have an Airline Transport Pilot license.
:crying:
So he is stuck with flying his brother's experimental aircraft.
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/GENERAL_AVIATIO...

:cry:
WAAAAH
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #49
50. It is irrelevant whether or not Rutan has an ATP
An ATP is only useful if the pilot is engaging in certain kinds of operations - Part 121 (see 121.437(a)) and Part 135 (see 135.241(a)(1)), for example. If Rutan wasn't flying any of the operations requiring an ATP, then there would have been no reason to get one - a Commercial license has no restrictions on the type of aircraft one can fly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #50
51. Tell that to the Talon-ted One
Sweet Pea says:
I don't think even Talon News would go with the accusation that Dick Rutan never received his INITIAL commercial license until 2003 or his INITIAL flight instructor qualification until 2004 or even his INITIAL flight mechanic cert until 1977.

Dick received both his solo pilot's license and driver's license on his sixteenth birthday. At the age of nineteen, Dick joined the Air Force Aviation Cadet Program, was commission Lieutenant and later received a Bachelor of Science Degree at the American Technological University through the Air Force Professional Education "Boot Strap" Program.
http://www.dickrutan.com/page3.html

Richard Glenn Rutan
Born: July 1, 1938
1938 + 16 = 1954

The approaching era of jet travel, and a series of midair collisions, prompted passage of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958. This legislation gave the CAA's functions to a new independent body, the Federal Aviation Agency. The act transferred air safety rulemaking from the CAB to the new FAA, and also gave the FAA sole responsibility for a common civil-military system of air navigation and air traffic control. The FAA's first administrator, Elwood R. Quesada, was a former Air Force general and advisor to President Eisenhower.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aviation_Administr...

Dick Rutan is older than the FAA.
He may have acquired a license to fly on his sixteenth birthday,
BUT
it did not come from the FAA.
Dick Rutan's initial license came from the CAA -- Civil Aeronautics Administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. I have absolutedly no idea...
what the purpose of your post is.

Is there any point to this, or are you just attempting to misdirect?

Isn't that one of your famous Truth Suppression Techniques? Oh yeah, it looks like it qualifies for techniques #2, 5, 9, 13, 17, and 18. I may have missed a few, but I'm not as familiar with these as I should be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #52
53. You took the words
right out of my mouth.

That is EXACTLY how I felt about Post # 45.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. I disagree
I can see the relevance of Post #45 to the discussion, but your post seems to be without any connection.

Perhaps you could enlighten me?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. Truth Suppression Technique Number 1
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
http://www.universalway.org/Foreign/truthsuppression.ht...



AZCat is probably not going to understand this next link either.
http://www.funbrain.com/cgi-bin/dots.cgi?A1=s&A2=2&A4=0
Nor anything on this page.
http://www.funbrain.com/dots/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #55
56. Insulting me may be an enjoyable way for you to pass the time...
But it doesn't seem to do anything to further the discussion.

Would it be possible for you to post something that wasn't vague or insulting?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #56
57. .... or truthful?
NO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #49
58. The original pilots do not stand up to scrutiny.
Perhaps that is why
certain passengers felt compelled to take the helm in their stead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-05 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #31
35. The ATP is reissued for a number of reasons
If the pilot in question - Victor Saracini - wanted to add a type rating to his ATP then it would have to be reissued.

You might notice the long string of aircraft types listed on Mr. Saracini's certificate: A/A320 A/B747-4 A/B757 A/B767 A/CA-212.

If he decides to begin flying a particular type, he must go through a certification process that culminates in his ATP being reissued with the new type of aircraft added to the certificate.


The fact is simple, DulceDecorum - the information provided by the FAA in this database is an incomplete version of that pilot's record. Any claims made by you or any other person about Mr. Saracini's certification (or lack thereof) are speculative at best and based on an incorrect understanding of FAA procedures.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-05 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #35
40. So Victor Saracini was given ATP
authorization to fly certain planes
AFTER he had already been flying them?

And what about his flipping eyesight?
Tailhook Magoo?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-05 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #40
43. Again, you display a woeful lack of knowledge of aviation
Please inform yourself about aviation and the FAA before speculating - it tends to reflect badly on the person doing the speculating.

As I do not know the circumstances behind the DOI for Mr. Saracini's ATP, I cannot tell you what happened. I can speculate that perhaps Mr. Saracini wanted to add a type that he had not been flying as a Pilot-In-Command (PIC) prior to his new ATP, or perhaps he lost his copy and needed it re-issued.

Regarding the eyesight, I suggest you consult Part 67 of the FARs. Part 67.103 deals exclusively with the eye requirements for a first class medical certificate, and perusing that section should answer your questions about Mr. Saracini's vision.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sweet Pea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-05 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #40
44. What ABOUT his flippin' eyesight???
Airline pilots can't wear glasses?????

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 12:13 AM
Response to Reply #44
46. Airline pilots or NAVY FIGHTER PILOTS?
Airline pilots do NOT
execute maneuvers that subject passenger airlines to serious G forces
UNLESS
they flunked out of Cessna school
and have a date with destiny.

Fighter jets do all sorts of things -- been to an air show lately?
What happens to glasses when you fly upside down?
What do contacts do to your eyeballs
when you are subjected to several Gs?

DulceDecorum is well aware that that Victor Saracini may have had passable vision when he was younger.
However DulceDecorum also has some idea of just what goes into the training of a Navy pilot. They want people who will be able to hang around long enough to to make that investment worthwhile, and doctors can tell at a very early age whether one's eyesight will fail in later life.

Jason Dahl and Victor Saracini were the two captains of the United Airlines planes. Both of them had poor vision.
Makes you wonder if United Airlines has been maintaining a Gannon-policy when it comes to letting certain pilots fly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gbwarming Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-24-05 01:04 AM
Response to Reply #46
48. Presbyopia
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sweet Pea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-25-05 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #46
59. Share, please?
However DulceDecorum also has some idea of just what goes into the training of a Navy pilot.

And BTW while not lately, I have been *in* airshows and and it matters little whether you are upside down or right side up or sideways or whateverways - fast, slow, straight and level or in a 6 g turn....glasses or contacts matter none.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-05 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #28
36. Dulce-- you simply amaze me.
Unfortunately, I will need some time to go over all this interesting material.

Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
number6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-05 03:45 PM
Response to Original message
19. third choice
the pilots the government says flew the planes
could not have been competent enough to fly the
planes into the target ...

so either better trained pilots or remote control ..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-05 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Could you give a reference or back up to that?
It is an interesting concept that Dulce Decorum has mentioned as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
number6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-05 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. for example /Inside 911 What Really Happened/
from the editors of Der Speigal Magazine (the Book)
St Martins paperbacks

page 13 "Hani Hanjour, the presumed pilot of the plane
that hit the pentagon, had problems learning how to fly ..."
" he had problems with takeoffs, landings, MIDAIR TURNS<my empf>
he was nervous and distracted.."


yet on page 127 "

"at 9:38 flight AA 77 made a skilfully executed down ward
spiral,..thundered low over the streets of Washington.."

like low enough to knock over street lamps, without plowing
into the ground, at 300 to 400 mph, all done by a half ass
"nervous and distracted" Cessna "pilot"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-05 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #19
26. I see. Sorry I misread you the first time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fusions_Minion Donating Member (103 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-05 05:59 PM
Response to Original message
21. Cessna school flunkees
fly jumbo jets 20 feet off the ground at 500 mph all the time!!! DUH.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-05 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Making a single 270+ degree turn from cruising speed and
dropping 7000 feet without destroying the airframe is quite a trick for a Cessna pilot whose flight instructor thought was totally incompetent.
I've set the basic parameters up in Microsoft Flight Simulator using a 767. It takes a lot of tweaking of the airbrakes, throttle, and wing surfaces to keep from destroying the airframe in mid-flight. It took me about 20 tries to find the right combination and hit the Pentagon.

Why not just drop it into the center? Or why not an approach that takes out the Sec Defense office? If this was so well planned, why'd they put it in the area where it would do the least damage? I know, I know...they were skilled enough to execute a precise turn, but not smart enough to choose the right location.

Too bad our $400BB/year military couldn't have been a few minutes quicker and at least gotten a picture or 2 of Hans flying that plane. They only had a 52 minutes "heads-up" after the 2nd crash at the WTC, though...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fusions_Minion Donating Member (103 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-05 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. And i assume that MSFS
is a simplified version of the actual physics of flight, and definitely a very simplified version of a Boeing 757's instrumentation.

Funny how they had a 52 minute warning in WTC 2, yet people were being told to go back to their offices. :mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-22-05 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #25
27. Absolutely simplified.
And it does not react like a Cessna, either.

Two other things about the hijacking:

(1) In all 4 cases, the terrorists did not attack targets within a minute or two of the takeover. Surely, if you planned this for years, you'd assume the fastest reaction time possible for our AF. And I'd assume that our government would make the most conservative assumptions as to the attacker's intent. If there were no communication with the terrorists on demands, how could we assume what their intent was? Why the need for a time consuming, high level discussion on what to do? Our $400BB/year military had no contingency plan for exactly such an event? Afterall, there were other warnings and intel about the use of planes as weapons. There were mock drills, simulating such an event....yet the chain of command on shoot down orders needed a conference call on 9/11 to discuss this? If only GWB had someone to suggest a better use of his time that morning, than learning about pet goats....

(2) Since the terrorists were looking to inflict a damaging blow on the US, why didn't they choose nuclear power plants? 2 planes each, hitting 2 plants could well have crippled or destroyed the livability of the East Coast from Washington, north. The targets chosen were highly symbolic, but not targets that maximized their damage potential.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-05 04:16 PM
Response to Original message
60. Remote Flight Would Be Sequentially Perfect
When a human being considers conducting a ruse upon another, they are compulsively and logically bound to do the best job they can.

Meaning that if planes were flown remotely on 9-11 the flight 175 approach would have been much better and the strike more centered.

OVERALL:
Since 175 almost missed and most of the fuel burned outside, 175 sould have fallen last. Instead it fell first.

How gullible are we?

Are we to believe that the building hit least, hardly burned would fall before the building hit hardest burned badly which falls second?

Sorry, not I.
Not in the face of the gove and, The Maine, Pearl Harbor, JFK, Iran Contra, S&L ripoff, Support for the Taliban & Saddam in the 1980's, BCCI, Enron and more minor lapses of law and reason than you can shake a stick at.

Some think that the tower explosions were triggered by a phone call or radio remote and that the planes were flown remote. In order to retrofit a 757-767 to fly remote, a "fly by wire" hydraulic interface must be installed and this is MAJOR work, testing and adjustment. It can be done but manufacturers do not do it because it does not work well. They build from scratch a plane such as the 747 & 777 that has no hydralics until the high pressure system that adjusts the control surfaces of the plane for flight. Fly by Wire.

757's-767's are hydraulic over hydraulic. Maintenance schedules/records accomodating a retro of that type would be obvious to scrutiny after the fact. The bumble plane swap is very easy to detect and can be seen by people on the ground. Risky.

The only bumble plane swap was by flight 77 as no evidence of a plane was found at the pentagon.

If remote planes were used the impact/explosion sequence would be perfect, that is the clincher when the difficulty of creating remote 767, '57's is considered with bumble swapping.

A wealthy Arab country can take an experienced acrobatic pilot and train another to ONLY fly into buildings or a team of pilot copilot to operate controls together and hit target, manuever, evade, etc.. The flight 175 turn was a very difficult turn for a big plane. A second pilot to operate the throttles is needed as the pilot has both hands very full and busy, as well as attention, and cannot correctly operate the engine throttles through the turn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-05 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #60
61. Interesting post. So who do you think was piloting the planes?
And why would they only substitute a plane for flight 77? Was there a screw up and they improvised?

And why can't a modification of auto-pilot have been enough to have remote piloting of the planes? I don't understand what hydraulic over hydraulic means.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-05 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. Human Pilots:Modifications Too Complex
Perhaps were going too far in trying to define the perps motives rather than just deal with the evidence. I could answer and tell you what I think but that might be too much and quell the quality exchange we're having. Let me just say that there was an "integration" of operations and the pentagon strike served mulitiple purposes, it was intended to swap a plane carrying a missile with flight 77.

Auto pilot has very limited flight capacity, hold a course, elevation etc. Auto is not remote and cannot produce enough control or versitile enough control to fly remote. The main reason is the "hydraulic over hydraulic" linkage system that connects the pilots controls to the final valves that regulate hydraulic flow at pressure to rams that move control surfaces and fly the plane.

The pilot operates a control that moves a valve that valves low flow, low pressure hydralic oil to another valve. The pilot controlled flow operates a much larger valve, requiring substancial force which is located on the route from the high pressure, high flow pump to the hydraulic ram doing the work of moving the control surfaces.

To convert hydraulic flow to electric signal and back again with proper speed and proportion is a double engineering BITCH. It can be done, has been done, but to do so undetected is basically out of the question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-09-05 08:05 AM
Response to Reply #62
65. I see. Thanks.
I guess the problem I have had with having real pilots is the uncertainty they add to the operation. If you're a planner, you can't be sure they will hit what you want.

You said remote control of the commercial airliners is too hard, and you also said plane-swapping is too hard.

So what does that leave?

In my mind, I still like the plane swap model where remote drones are substituted for the original airliners.

Have you seen this article?
http://www.the-movement.com/Radar/Radar.htm

Basically, it gives a plausible means for plane swapping, and the fact that transponders were turned off where radar coverage was light suggests they may have done this for plane swapping.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
janedoe Donating Member (540 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-03-05 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #60
83. Why would it need to be perfect?
If you are going to cheat on a test and get away with it, do you go for a perfect score?
So, what you are saying is that by "making" one error is proof you didn't cheat on the test?

Even folks making counterfeit bills make them look "used" so that they are less obvious.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneMind Donating Member (94 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-05 06:35 PM
Response to Original message
63. "the 9/11 hijackers"
"The 9/11 hijackers" is an incongruous phrase. A more accurate one might be "the 9/11 patsies and paper-trail makers."

Whoever these people were and/or are, and however many of them there were (no one really knows), the perpetrators of 9/11 would never have allowed any of these "patsies and paper-trail makers" to have anything to do with the execution of the so-called "attacks" of 9/11.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christophera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-05 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #63
64. Using Arabs Makes Better Cover
Admitted, all of the ID we have on the "hijackers" comes from government sources except for their videotaped statements, if those are real.

Wel. ............. something must be real, 'cause planes did hit towers. And, someone did make a paper trail that was unbeliveably clear. Mohammed Attas passport found on sidewalk near WTC1 ?? Come on.

It appears that separating the misinformation from the information is the first step. Basically, for the reasons stated in the beginning of this message, I do not argue about hijackers, but because remotely flown planes are less likely, I have to say that people were flying the planes.

Suddenly we have to find volenteers for a suicide flight. Hmmmmm, who would do such a thing? Gee, how about exploiting some Arabs, lie to them, give them money, lie to their frineds give them money. Better yet have somebody else lie to them and give them money.

Sounds like a covert intelligence operation to me.

Muslims do things like that, this is known. Their religious beliefs are very deep and their society/culture beleagured with violence. To manipulate them into doing something you want done in a way that you want it done then helping them to do it seems highly functional. Just have a back up, like flight 93 to MAKE SURE BOTH TOWERS ARE HIT. Then you can shoot it down.

I dunno, I don't argue about hijackers, only speculation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 12:39 PM
Response to Original message
66. Any new voters out there?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 01:53 PM
Response to Original message
67. I vote they were competent enough
but my vote doesn't appear at the top, because I wasn't registered when the poll started.

Reasons:
Judging by the FBI's description of their skills, there's no way they were good enough to fly the planes. However, the FBI report was hardly 100% accurate (Florida timeline errors, etc.) and there is evidence to contradict it on this point.

(1) Pilots Attended US Military Installations
Six of the hijackers have the same as or a similar name to a person who attended a US air base:
(a) Saeed Alghamdi and (b) Ahmed Alghamdi have the same names as men listed at a housing facility for foreign military trainees at Penascola. (c) Hamza Alghamdi and (d) Ahmed Alnami have names similar to individuals listed in public records as using the same address inside the base. A man named Saeed Alghamdi graduated from the Defense Language Institute at Lackland Airforce Base in San Antonio. A man called (e) Mohammad Atta attended Maxwell Airforce Base in Alabama and an (f) Abdulaziz Alomari attended Brooks Air Force Base in San Antonio. The US Defense Department's denial was very weak and only said that they were "probably not" the same people as the hijackers. In addition, the denial referred to the suspects whose names were "similar" to the US base alumni. What's more, Hopsicker found a witness who positively identified Atta as being at Maxwell. It's not hard to see why this would be covered up. I find it unlikely that all six of these guys had been to the US bases (I guess there may have been some cases of mistaken identity), but I think a couple may well have attended them. It's also worth pointing out that the alleged hijackers were Saudis from a relatively poor part of the country from which lots of young men join the military.

(2) Atta's Florida girlfriend Amanda Keller though Atta was a better pilot than he let on, as he sometimes seemed to be giving flying lessons, rather than taking them.

(3) The original list of the 5 hijackers of American 77 contains the name Mansour Khaled (instead of Hani Hanjour). MK then completely disappeared from the list of American 77 passengers. When in Hamburg Atta lived with a guy called Atif bin Mansour, who was both a radical Islamist and a fighter pilot for the Pakistani Air Force. Many Muslims have lots of names and use various combinations of them. It is perfectly possible that his full name was Atif bin Mansour Khaled. You'll remember that ATC Danielle O'Brien said all the controllers at Dulles thought it was being flown like a military plane. The motivation to keep his name secret is that the US very much needed Pakistan for the war against Afghanistan and did not wish to embarrass it.

(4) Al Qaeda actually has its own airline (it gained control of the Afghan Arianna in the 1990s), which it used to smuggle drugs out of Afghanistan (through the Gulf, which, I suppose, is why the administration doesn't draw attention to this) and weapons into Afghanistan. There is no way a perfectly competent organisation like Al Qaeda would ever do a mission like this with four puddle-jumper pilots - they would just know they needed proper pilots to fly the planes. Also, they could dissemble (pretend not to have good pilots in the US) in an attempt to fool any US authorities that uncovered some of the hijackers in the US.

Christophera (above) suggest there had to be eight pilots, not four among the hijackers and I agree with this. In addition to the reasons he gives, there could also be problems if the pilot decided he did not want to die that day and ran off, if he were arrested before the operation or if he were injured when seizing the plane. Also, there seem to have been two hijackers in each cockpit - if the second guy couldn't fly, what was he doing there? Shouldn't he be in back menacing the passengers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-03-05 06:10 AM
Response to Reply #67
68. Great find, Kevin (Atif bin Mansour)
I hadn't seen that before.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-03-05 06:23 AM
Response to Reply #68
69. I can't take the credit
Redsock found it. You can read the original thread here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
all&address=125x42650
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-03-05 07:45 AM
Response to Reply #67
70. Pilots Attended US Military Installations
Oh yeah, nothing to see here. Move right along.

Question-- if Al Qaeda had good pilots already, why did they waste time putting men through flight schools? What was the point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-03-05 08:28 AM
Response to Reply #70
71. Options
I'll give you a few options:
(1) It's cover. The hijackers had to do something while they were in the US. Why not send them to flight school?

(2) So they could do a little bit of drug smuggling on the side.

(3) Reconnaisance. The hijackers needed to do some reconnaisance. Some of this just involved looking around airports and taking transcontinental flights, but they also needed to actually get up in the air and try the routes they would be taking, perhaps so they would know where they were when they hijacked the planes and could get to the targets quickly. People who could fly planes were needed for this reconnaisance, but they didn't want to expose (all) the real pilots to the risk of a long stay in the US, because the operation very obviously hinges on the pilots. Of the two people in the cockpit one is a real pilot whose knows how to fly big aircraft and the other is the lesser pilot who's done the recon. The co-pilots need to be able to fly to do the recon and need an excuse for being in the states, so going to flight school enables them to kill two birds with one stone. What do you think the other guy in the cockpit was doing? Reciting the Koran?
Where was that airport that refused to rent a Cessna to Hani a month before the attacks because he was such a bad pilot? Freeway Airport in Bowie, Md., 20 miles west of Washington. What was he doing there if not recon?

(4) Lots of Al Qaeda guys have gone to flight school in the US, including Osama's personal pilot. They're familiar with the system.

I pick (3), with a little bit of (2) and (4).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-03-05 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #71
72. The extra time taking flight lessons was worth the chance of being caught?
Or did they know they would never get caught?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-03-05 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #72
73. How would they have been caught?
Until 9/11, foreign students at flight schools weren't viewed with any particular distrust.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-03-05 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #73
75. Ever hear of Kenneth Wlliams or Colleen Rowley?
That was pretty weak, M-ATC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-03-05 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #75
78. Of course, but the terrorists hadn't prior to 9/11.
Give me a reason that somebody planning a 9/11 attack PRE-9/11 would have had to believe that foreign flight school students stood an unacceptable risk of being identified as terrorists.

Hindsight's 20/20. At the time, Al-Queda had no reason to believe that U.S. flight schools were a bad idea, unless there's some information I'm unaware of.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-03-05 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #78
79. Oh yeah, the hijackers just toodled about making a ruckus everywhere they
went and nobody said anything, did they?

I wonder why the hijackers weren't a LITTLE more discreet.

You would think Al Qaeda would be worried about running into the law-- unless they knew they were protected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-03-05 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #79
84. Well, they were discreet enough not to get caught...
...I'd say they were discreet enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-05 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #84
87. Discreet enough?
Only if they knew their CIA or FBI handlers would never allow them to get caught.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-03-05 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #78
80. "[why would anyone] believe that foreign flight school students stood an
unacceptable risk of being identified as terrorists."

Because according to Nafeez Ahmed, al Qaeda's 1995 Project Bojinka plot
anticipated flying planes into targets like the Pentagon, Sears Tower, and WTC.

Richard Clarke knew the "Atlanta Rules" that closed the air space above the '96 Olympics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-05 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #80
88. Yes, but I haven't heard that anything was done with that info.
Foreign flight students weren't being investigated. I don't think there was much of a risk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-03-05 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #72
74. Recon
A small group had to come over first and do recon. Then the muscle came. Perhaps the real pilots showed up last. Hanjour could fly as well as he ever could when he got his licence back in 1999. There is some evidence to suggest that Atta could already fly when he came over. The actual flying part of the recon comes at the end, so there was plenty of time for Jarrah, al Alshehhi and whoever was supposed to be the co-pilot on United 23 (if he couldn't fly already) to learn to fly. First they have to look at potential targets, then they fly similar routes on the sort of planes they will hijack. They can't start flying the intended routes they want to take after hijacking the planes until they actually decide which planes they are going to hijack where and what buildings they're going to crash them into.

I wouldn't go as far as to say that knew they would never get caught - what about Moussaoui? - but they certainly do seem to have enjoyed some form of protection. There's no other way to account for the visa applications. I don't think that a group of highly-placed intel officers (and perhaps others) letting it happen on purpose is the only explanation for the protection, or even the best explanation for it. Maybe they just used the drugs thing as cover? My feeling is they must have had some sort of plan, but I can't work it out for the life of me. What's the point of going to Portland - so his bag's found? But the bag would be found in the car anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-03-05 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #74
76. Is there any evidence that the hijackers flew small planes even NEAR NYC
Edited on Wed Aug-03-05 11:58 AM by spooked911
or Washington DC? As far as I know, they were taking flight lessons in Florida and Arizona-- and never flew one airplane to NYC or Washington.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-03-05 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #76
77. Washington yes
It's in one of my previous posts:
"Where was that airport that refused to rent a Cessna to Hani a month before the attacks because he was such a bad pilot?
Freeway Airport in Bowie, Md., 20 miles west of Washington. What was he doing there if not recon?"
Plus, there are multiple references to the other recon work on transcontinental flights (James Woods, etc.), plus they had a pass to restricted areas at Boston airport. How did they get that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-03-05 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #74
81. "Maybe they just used the drugs thing as cover?"
There you go again, Kevin. Outside the box. Damn you are shrewd.

So maybe the authorities are covering up the fact that WTC was dynamited
because it was falling anyway (or covering up the fact that al Qaeda
dynamiters evaded Marvin Bush's security) and maybe they're covering up
the fact that a missile was smuggled into the country or stolen and
fired at the Pentagon and maybe the hijackers were covered by a drug
payoff and so not detected.

Note that Sibel Edmonds says she is gagged on the drug issue, and if I
recall right Ms. Singh said she's been warned not to talk about the
drugs.

IMHO when Osama smuggles a dirty bomb into the country he'll get it
hrough easy because he'll just disguise it as a shipment of heroin.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-05 01:25 AM
Response to Reply #81
85. The OCT doesn't work
There are lots of obvious holes in it. In some cases there is evidence (like that for the pilots) that shows us how the holes should be filled. The drug issue is certainly a big part of 9/11 and I think it's one of the reasons Osama will never be taken alive.

Disguising a dirty bomb as a shipment of heroin is a good idea, perhaps it would be better not to post it here - maybe we're being monitored by Al Qaeda as well as the NSA!

There's no missile. If there was, why would it circle the Pentagon beforehand?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
janedoe Donating Member (540 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-03-05 06:58 PM
Response to Original message
82. Your poll is missing my answer
There were no hijackers on the planes -- at least physically. Neither of the choices you gave in your poll addressed this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reprehensor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-05 08:58 AM
Response to Original message
86. Daniel Hopsicker and the Florida cover-up.
This excerpt is from Chapter 1 of Daniel Hopsicker's "Welcome to Terrorland"

The FBI took all our files, everything. They loaded the files right outside this window, said Treanor, indicating a parking lot outside the station, into two Ryder trucks, then drove them right onto a C-130 military cargo plane at the Sarasota airport, which took off for Washington with Jeb Bush aboard.

We will come back to visit the question of the Governor of Florida s national security responsibilities, or scandal-averting responsibilites. The important point was that taking files was a lot different than copying them. We were learning that the FBI wasnt taking any chances.

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Venice City Manager George Hunt said to reporters, Its really just coincidence that terrorists chose such a place (as Venice) to be their training ground for the unspeakable.

Was that true? Determining whether it was or not would be complicated by the fact that the FBI had dutifully confiscated anything that looked remotely like evidence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Aug 20th 2019, 11:13 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC