In article <27fmg.11822$OT.11198@newsfe6-win.ntli.net>, manic_mandy@hotmail.com says...

In news:Cg2mg.69845$4L1.1240@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com,
Bryan Olson <fakeaddress@nowhere.org> typed:

Nonsense. Small and surprising operations are the ones most
likely to escape the defense systems.

True but they still need to be undertaken with professionalism, require
preplanning, intelligence and coordination so require a large and well
organised infrastructure.

What is remarkable about 911 is the considerable amount of response time
available between the first and second plane hit should have been sufficient
to scramble the fighters. Especially when you consider there were
helicopters on the scene and flying around within minutes and helicopters
fly much slower than fighters.

Admittedly one would not want to down a US civilian passenger aircraft,
under any circumstances. but the second plane could have been buzzed
sufficiently to send it on a different course, particularly if the pilot was
inexperienced as we are lead to believe.

Flying into a skyscraper requires as much preparation and precision as
landing on an airport runway. You have to set a very precise course, you
have to descend in a controlled way, you can't just drop the nose and drop
5000 feet since the plane could go into a stall and start breaking up. Any
one who has flown even a flight simulator on a computer would be aware of
how difficult it is to manually land a large aircraft, the amount of
pre-planning and control necessary. Most civilian commercial aircraft pilots
rely on very sophisticated technology of one sort of another, guidance
systems, navigation aids, computers and air traffic control in order to land
safely on a runway.

Yet we are expected to believe two highly inexperienced amateur pilots
managed to fly two large passenger jets into these towers with deadly
accuracy with no proper navigation aids and extremely limited flying
experience, under conditions that were far from ideal. i.e a hijacking
situation and of course knowing they were flying to their deaths.

The problem is even highly experienced commercial pilots would have
difficulty flying a passenger jet into a particular building hundreds of
miles away with practically no navigational aids. It might be easy in a
Cessna, or in a flight simulator, but of course flight simulators do have
navigational aids and would allow you to make a second attempt in any case.

The fact that both missions were accomplished with such deadly military
accuracy does suggest whoever was flying those planes was far from
inexperienced. and/or had help from external sources, such as some form of
ground based pathfinder system using geographically separated radio signals
as was used by bomber pilots in WWII to find whole cities, and possibly some
form of ground based radar tracking system clandestine air traffic control
housed in a van or truck. Because without some form of external aids it
would be quite a feat for even a highly experienced military pilot to
undertake such a mission with such deadly clinical accuracy. Whilst one
might accept luck could play a part in a single sucessful mission not only
do you have it happening twice but 3 times if you count the Pentagon.

-- 
Amanda

There are a whole series of questions that are not answered by the official
story, and it is these inconsistancies that make the official story,
into being one of coverup, especially since the official commission
report merely repeated/endorsed the official explanation, and inconsistancies
are simply ignored altogether.
They simply adhere to the principle of - if you repeat the same story
over and over again, the public will start believing it.
And then the perpetrators will get away with murder - and the government
and government agencies, do know about it.

Harvey