In my recent post My current views on 9/11 – brief summary, I wrote:
I’m an activist against religion-based bigotry, but I strongly disagree with the idea that, in order to oppose anti-Muslim bigotry, one must deny that there were any live human hijackers on 9/11. There is not enough evidence for the pure “MIHOP” view (see What is your HOP level? Ten 9/11 paradigms by Nicholas Levis), whereas there is, alas, plenty of evidence that there were indeed live human hijackers on 9/11, although one may legitimately question some of the specifics.
We then got into a discussion about Hani Hanjour’s flying skills or lack thereof. In this comment, I also pointed out that there are some difficulties with the remote-controlled planes idea.
In this comment, realitydesign wrote:
In terms of phone calls- we learn now that the olson calls never actually happened- NEVER happened, the FBI has 1 call for them at 0 seconds- it never connected. This info is new and is in DRG’s new book which contains NO theory, just facts and contradictions.
I haven’t yet read this particular book. Could you please tell us what DRG’s main evidence is for his claim that the Olson call never happened?
Looking around on the web to find some discussion of this issue, I find this page on the 911myths site and this JREF thread. The JREF thread is, as usual, full of ad hominems and other distractions, but does contain a few substantive posts, including this one and this one, which refer to the Moussauoi trial evidence, to which there is a link in this post. Various other relevant issues are discussed on the 911myths page I referred to above.
Since I don’t know your reasons for believing that the Olson call never happened, I don’t know whether the above pages adequately address them.
However, I would like to ask you one question: Before you concluded, on whatever grounds, that the Olson call was fake, did you look around on the web for counter-arguments, to see if there were any good counter-arguments? Or did you just immediately believe that Griffin must be right?
I would say that before you believe something so unlikely as a no-hijacker scenario, you should research and weigh carefully the arguments and counterarguments. Perhaps you don’t understand why a no-hijacker scenario is prima facie unlikely?
Yes, we do know that high officials in the U.S. government once contemplated the idea of doing a fake hijacking as part of Operation Northwoods, but we also know that JFK decided not to carry out Operation Northwoods. Perhaps it wasn’t carried out because it would have been way too complicated?
Anyhow, we then got into a discussion about the sharp turn alleged to have been made by Flight 77 before it hit the Pentagon.
You also wrote:
On another note, John Lear of Lear Jet also said he thought 911 was a scam the moment he saw it because he and his buddies would have problems hitting the twin towers on a first try at 500 mph.
I found some statements by John Lear on this page.
But I’ve also come across other stuff, allegedly by other pilots, making contrary claims not only about the amount of skill required to hit the WTC buildings but also about the amount of skill required for Hani Hanjour’s loop maneuver. I don’t remember where I originally read these, but here is what I was able to dig up offhand:
- Ask the pilot by Patrick Smith, Salon.com, May 19, 2006
- Oh no! Not another expert! (PDF) by Giulio Bernacchia (said to be a Boeing pilot and flight simulation instructor) – confusingly organized; you’ll have to read carefully to figure out who is saying what
- JREF post quoting an Air & Space magazine article (JPG) about an alleged instance in which ordinary commercial pilots had to make tight corkscrew turns prior to landing at an airport
I don’t know what to make of the fact that some pilots are claiming these maneuvers are impossibly difficult, while other pilots are claiming that’s not true. As I said, I’ll have to talk to a pilot myself sometime.
In the meantime, regarding various claims by members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, here’s a JREF post listing a bunch of relevant threads in the JREF forum.
As I said, to me the idea of no live human hijackers is extremely unlikely, because it would require both (1) the faking of a bunch of phone calls and (2) the prevention of any contrary true phone calls. These are not simple matters at all, it seems to me.
Various “9/11 debunkers” have objected to the idea of any kind of government complicity whatsoever on the alleged grounds that it would be logistically too complicated. I don’t think this objection is valid for all conceivable kinds of government complicity hypotheses. I don’t think it’s necessarily valid for WTC demolition hypotheses or for NORAD-interference hypotheses, for example. But I do think it’s valid for no-hijackers hypotheses, which, in my opinion, can’t help but be at least several orders of magnitude more complicated, logistically, than either a WTC demolition hypothesis or a NORAD-interference hypotheses. See my posts about a priori objections.
Note: If anyone here wants to debate with me about the a priori logistics argument for either WTC demolition hypotheses or NORAD interference hypotheses, please do so in response to relevant posts listed at the above link, NOT here in response to this current post. (See my comment policy.)