My question is how did just a few pilots who had very limited commercial flight experience manage to direct the plane off course

Because logic dictates that all four aircraft on 9/11 were remote controlled drones.

There is even historical president for this, they wanted to use commercial aircraft drones in the 60s for a false flag terror event, it was code named Operation Northwoods.

Ding ding ding.

Hey hey, we got a winner. Those towers were built to come down. That was always the plan.

Arnon Milchan the infamous Israeli spy's first movie was the Medusa Touch

Yep. Anyone who has so much as driven past the Pentagon can see with the naked eye that there is absolutely NWIH that a Boeing 757 flew at that trajectory, speed, etc., missed all the trees, highway overpasses, streetlamps, and didn't so much as disturb one freakin' blade of grass until it hit the building absolutely bulls-eye. Can't pull off that turn, at that speed, at that angle, and leave no trace...well, we all know.

Bottom line; anyone who believes the official story is a moron...the greatest "feat" in aviation history pulled off by idiots who couldn't even fly Cessnas according to their own script...lol.

Best screenname I've seen on reddit, btw.

Correct. Air traffic controllers have had the ability to over ride a aircraft flights path with remote controlled capability, in the event of a hijacking. I forgot the exact term for this technology, but its been around for a while. Some speculate the trajectory for these crashes were pre programmed and remotely piloted.

There's no business like Jew business like few business I knew. Even with a turkey that you no will fold, You may get Kabul and Baghdad sold. Still you wouldn't trade for your secret gold, Let's go on with the Snow, let's gooooooo onnnnn with theeee SNOWWWWWW

My question is how did just a few pilots who had very limited commercial flight experience manage to direct the plane off course

A plane has one pilot. On flight 77, that pilot was Hani Hanjour, who was in fact a certified commercial airline pilot.

Do you think someone can become a FAA certified commercial airline pilot without demonstrating proficiency?

On flight 77, that pilot was Hani Hanjour,

Absolutely zero evidence for this claim

What evidence would you accept?

Him boarding the aircraft with a time stamped video from any of the 300 CCTV cameras that were in the airport that day.

You will not be able to link me to even one.

Tell me the odds that these "hijackers" just so happened to hijack two aircraft that then rammed into the Twin Towers which were just as it happens were wired up for controlled demolition.

Throw a number at me.

Love your username!

I don’t have any evidence to disprove your theory, I’m just here to support it. What did it for me was wtc 7. And Silverstein saying “we decided to pull it” while knowing it takes days of labor and planning to set up a building to collapse in its own footprint at terminal velocity. I think he spoke the truth and the entire complex was rigged to collapse perhaps weeks in advance. He took out some massive insurance on the property just before those events took place, coincidentally.

I just can’t wrap my head around the thought that there’s people who would participate in such horrors. Or how they stay silent about it.

I just can’t wrap my head around the thought that there’s people who would participate in such horrors. Or how they stay silent about it.

they do much worse

free fall speed, not terminal velocity

the shills will argue the semantics of the phrase "pull it" by saying that he meant to "pull" the firefighters and let the building burn

so its best to focus on what he says right after, which is "... and then we watched [WTC7] collapse"

since WTC7 only took a few seconds to collapse, its clear that Larry Silverstein was looking directly at WTC7 when it collapsed

and why would he be looking at WTC7 of all things, at that exact moment, unless he was anticipating something...like a collapse

theres not much ambiguity when he says "and we watched the building collapse"

Hanjour “was reported to the [Federal Aviation Administration] in February 2001 after instructors at his flight school in Phoenix had found his piloting skills so shoddy and his grasp of English so inadequate that they questioned whether his pilot’s license was genuine.” In a subsequent New York Times article, it is revealed that Hanjour’s instructors thought he was so bad a pilot and spoke such poor English that they contacted the Federal Aviation Administration to verify that his license was not a fake."-Jim Yardley, "A Trainee Noted for Incompetence", New York Times, 4 May 2002

Even with just a couple hours flight time in a flight simulator, flying a commercial jet that size like it’s a fighter jet is impossible and would destroy the framework of the plane.

Just flight 77 alone (God rest their souls) with the Pentagon strike.... just as you said, 500+mph, 70 feet off the ground is like hitting a bullseye, at the bottom of a twisting playground covered slide with a bow and arrow.

I don’t know the answers, to what happened that day. But any intelligent mind must ask how so many coincidences happened.

The biggest red flag for me was when (((they))) found that hijacker’s passport in the street. And offered it as evidence that the entire operation was a terrorist plot. See that doesn’t work, if a massive jet slams into a building with enough fuel to melt steel beams, absolutely obliterating anything inside that jet, how can a paper booklet survive unscathed? No fucking way.

Then there’s the clip of 175 (of which I knew two victims from my hometown) going into the wtc over and over and over....not exploding externally but only exploding after it had disappeared COMPLETELY into the building like a phantom. Doesn’t make sense. Feels like I’m watching cheap video game CGI.

But what do I know. I’ve never seen a plane hit a skyscraper before.

I bet that’s what (((they))) were counting on.

So are you saying the 2 planes we all watched hundreds if not thousands of times, crash in to the WTC weren’t really planes?

Nope. I didn’t say that at all. Just said it looks very odd. Then again I’ve never seen a plane hit a building before.

Then there’s the clip of 175 (of which I knew two victims from my hometown) going into the wtc over and over and over....not exploding externally but only exploding after it had disappeared COMPLETELY into the building like a phantom. Doesn’t make sense.

Planes don't immediately explode into a huge fireball as soon as they scratch something? That's what ((((((((((((([[[[[[[[[((((THEY)))]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]])))))))]]]]]]] want you to think!

Alright, alright. I’m no physics guru. I believe people on the ground saw the plane as well. So there’s no argument for holograms or cgi. Ridiculous.

My ONLY point here, is the passport being found after surviving that resulting fireball. That’s it, and that’s all.

Didn’t mean to go all “no planes” on ya.

The plane that went down in Kentucky was probably suppose to hit the pentagon, but something went wrong and it went down. After plan a failed, plan b was a missile - only way that makes sense to me when you look at the size of the hole in the side of the Pentagon and think about the tragectory

No planes went down in Kentucky. I think you mean Shanksville, Pennsylvania. U93

Yes I need to correct that I'm sorry I'm in Pennsylvania I don't know what I'm thinking about saying Kentucky but my point still stands

It's questionable that plane went down in Pennsylvania either. This is another "crash" without any wreckage. The official story was that most of the wreckage was buried a few feet underground, and that the cockpit section landed something to the tune of a 1/4 mile away. Also, it was never photographed.

Nope, I'm not shitting you!

https://www.nps.gov/media/photo/gallery.htm?id=C7A45234-155D-451F-67A019C294E6A905

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkivdEGph9A

why is it that if an airplane crashes into the ground and its NOT terrorism related, they gather up all the wreckage and rebuild the airplane in a hangar, down to the last rivet

but if that same airplane crashes into the ground and it IS terrorism related, they don't reconstruct the airplane because its best to assume what happened instead of verifying what happened

American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. We all know that.

With zero recognisable debris. Sure. Okay. Whatever.

No plane hit the Pentagon.

OK, that's what I'm leaning towards too, but I'll play Devil's Advocate for a second:

Why go to all the trouble of using planes (drones, whatever) on the twin towers, only to use a missile for the Pentagon. That makes no sense.

I suspect the Pentagon and WTC7 were the real targets, with WTC 1&2 as misdirection, showy icing on the cake.

Follow the money.

I think so.

WTC 1&2 was the made for TV (di)version.

Occam's getting a mighty close shave with that razor.

comments that expose an idiot:

Occams Razor

Conspiracy Theorist

Correlation Precludes Causation

Russia would have told me

Someone would talk

It would take too many people

Its too complicated for our incompetent government

Foreigners have no rights under our Constitution

Bill Clinton couldn't get away with a blow job, therefore nobody ever got away with anything

I don't know if they expose idiocy, or just shoddy thinking. Most people just parrot what they've heard before, because it's hard coming to your own conclusions.

I've actually never heard Correlation Precludes Causation - anybody that says that doesn't understand logic, but if we're talking about reddit comments, that seems to be the rule rather than the exception. It's getting harder all the time to find anyone who can objectively parse a simple declarative sentence.

Occam's Razor is a little trickier - most that use it don't understand it's a rule of thumb, not a proof; the trick is knowing when to apply it. You always have to remember that, when you hear hoofbeats, it just might be zebras.

Correlation Precludes Causation is a bit of tongue-in-cheek

often when i am debating someone i will give an example of a cause-and-effect, and they will invariably say

"thats a correlation... and correlation doesn't mean causation"

and they dismiss the example precisely because it has a correlation, as if they have been conditioned to think that correlation precludes causation

for example, ill cite this case where vaccine caused autism, and observe how you respond to it...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOtk6vxVg0k

the alternative 'rebuttal' is to call it an anecdote, as if that means it didn't happen

Correlation Precludes Causation is a bit of tongue-in-cheek

I like it. One of my favorite things to say in a "debate" is "All murderers have eaten mashed potatoes, so if we make mashed potatoes illegal, there won't be any more murders, right?", but the irony is usually wasted.

I read an interesting take on illiteracy that applies to too many of the positions I see proposed.

3 Levels of Illiteracy:

• 1) Can't read a soup can

• 2) Can read the words in an article, can understand what most of the words mean, but not what the article is saying

• 3) Can understand what the what the article is saying but not understand the point the author was making, or the logical thinking the author used to get there

Group 1) is getting smaller, but there are an increasing number of people who fall into 2) and 3), as evidenced by their willingness to spout stock phrases from the herd or some "authority figure" of dubious distinction because they can't think things through for themselves. (If one were of a conspiratorial nature, one might assume this increase is the desired result of the current clown show that masquerades as "education".)

But that's just me using anecdotal evidence, I guess.

i like the way you think

i heard somewhere that half of the population is "functionally illiterate" which means they can read the words but can't comprehend the meanings behind them

as a concerned citizen, one has to ask what they can do about this.

how do you teach critical thinking?

There are some interesting ideas here.

The notes on illiteracy are from the March 5 essay "Suppose you write to your child and then remember he can’t read?"

From the essay:

"Any person who has looked into the history of education in America soon learns—from authors John Taylor Gatto and Charlotte Iserbyt, for example—that the system has been intentionally rigged and degraded, because who in power wants millions of independent, literate, logical minds out there questioning and analyzing what elite power is really doing?

The way back from the swamp of incompetence and futility isn’t a short journey. But it can be accomplished, one teacher and one student at a time. One class at a time.

If not in a school, then at home."

what makes you think that real planes hit the WTC? didn't you see the video with the error in it where the nose of the plane came out the other side of the building exactly the same shape it went in?

It was a missle. There was no plane.

This is not correct. There is no evidence of a missile, the witnesses to the event saw a plane. The critical thing to note here is where the plane was, on what route and what it did after.

Ok. Either way it is pretty suspicious that the "plane" hit that specific part of the building considering what was going on.

Well if you listen to the witnesses, especially Roosevelt Roberts, a Pentagon police officer, you'll know that no plane hit the building. They blew it up, its the only option if Roosevelt saw a plane fly away from the building.

He ran from the loading dock after the explosion and saw a plane. There wasn't two planes so......they blew it up and the impossible turn and loop that Hani Hanjour did was done by a decoy plane. Made to look like it impacted.

That's why they took 84 video tapes from the area. If the all showed the plane actually impacting, they would be used to prove their side of the story as legit. Since they were all taken away, you can guess they don't show anything except a plane flying over the building.

I didn't downvote you. I rarely downvote people. I save those for total shitposts that ruin this sub. So quick to call some stranger a coward? That says all I need to know about you.

I actually upvoted your comment. Discussion is a good thing.

If it doesn't apply to you, then it applies to those who do. No need to take it personally, its meant to get people to speak about how they feel instead of letting some bullshit arrows determine if they feel they're right or in the wrong.

No biggie, it's for the people who do downvote and run. Who knew you were paying attention to all your comments and checking for edits though.

Sure, it could have been a smaller jet, or a drone or something. That would make it match the eyewitness accounts.

Not when all the witnesses say the same thing and described the plane as a commercial jet with the same AA shiny aluminum and blue and red.

That would not be the same as what they described. They gave their testimony twice in 2002 and 2004. Never changing their accounts.

All the witnesses I've seen appear to say it was a small plane or a missle, so what are you talking about?

What about the bullshitter Mike Walters?

What about the USA today parade?

What about the two Pentagon police officers sitting outside the citgo gas station?

What about the workers at the Arlington National cemetery?

What about Edward Paik?

What about Sean Boger?

Ah this question takes me back.. to the entrance of the rabbit hole.

Say goodbye to your free time.. and welcome !

Our creator uses numbers to express herself after self contemplation.

Can I submit this for your viewing pleasure if you don't mind? I would like to challenge the idea that the pane impacted the building.

The real conspiracy is to keep any idea other than the impact, in the realm of impossibility.

BUSH DID 9/11

ZOG did 9/11

Not only did they lower their altitude, they did so in one of the most complex and difficult spiraling maneuvers there are. And this was supposedly done by a hijacker that couldn't even pass his private pilot practical exam

Do we really know it crashed into the Pentagon? That video is pretty suspect.

The first order of business was to confiscate all security camera footage in the area. It's never seen the light of day. Why?

Yeah many cameras were in the area and could of provided video proof of the event. Yet only a handful of frames from 2 different security cameras have been released. When synchronizing the frames, there are obvious differences between them regaurding the location of the object that supposedly hit the pentagon. Which basically prooves that the footage had been edited. Which leaves us with no reliable video evidence.

where is he going with that?

https://i.redd.it/rpyzo7j99i601.jpg

oh, i see

https://i.redd.it/28hp77ym7i601.jpg