#I named him after a jet maneuver despite him being a travel plane

[s735]

Here's my goober!!

He's my only Transformers OC at the moment, so I am quite attatched to the guy.

Here's some old full body pics from December

[96thdayofrage]

Hani Hanjour and Flight 77's Unexplained Expert Maneuvers

Further suspension in logic exists in the 'official story's' narrative as to who flew Flight 77 so expertly into the Pentagon's west wing. Hani Hanjour is credited with being the airplane's pilot. This is a man who, three weeks before September 11, attempted to rent a Cessna at an airfield in Maryland. Suspicious of his dubious 'pilot's license', officials at the airfield insisted he take a chaperoned test-flight before rental would be approved. He failed his test flight miserably. He could neither control, nor properly land the Cessna. In fact, the instructors at the airfield in Maryland said, "It was like he had hardly even ever driven a car. He could not fly at all." Other source. And yet, the official narrative of 9/11 asks us to believe that Hanjour pulled off a stunt that would press the limits of even the most experienced aviation test pilot.

The official story unfolds something like this. The rather diminutive Hanjour, sometime after take-off, fought his way into the cockpit, and wrestled control of Flight 77 from a 6'4" former Marine combat fighter pilot named Charles Burlingame, a man family members and colleagues say would never have given up his aircraft or the safety of his passengers. After dispatching with the co-pilot as well, Hanjour settled in and turned his attention to the bewildering array of gadgets and devices of a Boeing 757 instrument panel - a panel he was wholly unfamiliar with - in an airplane traveling 500 mph, 7 miles in the air, under the stress of a recently executed hijacking plot. Then, without the help of any ground control or air-traffic controllers providing him information and/or settings, this pilot who could not control a tiny Cessna 3 weeks earlier "would have to very quickly interpret his heading, ground track, altitude, and airspeed information on the displays before he could even figure out where in the world he was, much less where the Pentagon was located in relation to his position." (From the essay 'The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training', by Nila Sagadevan, an aeronautical engineer and pilot.)

From the Ohio/Kentucky border, Hanjour then supposedly turned the plane around, set course for Washigton D.C. hundreds of miles away, and successfully entered the most restricted airspace in the world without eliciting a single military intercept - despite the crash of two other known hijacked aircraft into the WTC, and a missing third, being covered on every radio and television station in the country. "In order to perform this bit of electronic navigation, he would have to be very familiar with (Instrument Flight Rules) procedures. None of these fellows (the alleged hijackers) even knew what a navigational chart looked like, or even how to plug frequencies into NAV/COM radios, much less input information into flight management computers (FMC) and engage LNAV (lateral navigation automated mode). If one is to believe the official story, all of this was supposedly accomplished by raw student pilots while flying blind at 500 MPH over unfamiliar (and practically invisible) terrain, using complex methodologies and employing sophisticated instruments."

According to the official account, an unidentified aircraft that somebody randomly decided was 'Flight 77' (remember, the transponder needed to identify the aircraft had been turned off) then suddenly pops up over Washington DC out of nowhere and executes an incredibly precise diving turn at a rate of 360 degrees/minute while descending at 3,500 ft/min, at the end of which "Hanjour" allegedly levels out at ground level. The maneuver was in fact so precisely executed that the air traffic controllers at Dulles refused to believe the blip on their screen was a commercial airliner. Danielle O'Brian, one of the air traffic controllers at Dulles who reported seeing the aircraft at 9:25 said, 'The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane.'" (ABC News, 10/24/2001, also archived at www.cooperativeresearch.org)

The official story of Hanjour's flight path continues in an even more bizarre narrative. Having successfully entered D.C. airspace, with no idea how soon fighter aircraft would show up to shoot him down, he finds himself pointed in the ideal direction toward the East wing of the Pentagon, where all the top brass in the military are known to be stationed. But then he apparently changes his mind as to his heading, and pulls off that incredible, sweeping 270-degree descending turn at 400+mph to approach the Pentagon from the opposite direction. There, he inexplicably lines up the less valued West wing, which was miraculously scheduled to receive the finishing touches of extensive bomb-blast retrofitting the next day, September 12, leaving it conveniently empty of most of its military employees. "The section known as Wedge 1 (the West Wing) had been under renovation and was scheduled for final completion on Wednesday, September 12th, 2001."

One year after the attacks, MSNBC's Ashleigh Banfield mused, "It's ironic says Pentagon Renovation Manager Lee Evey that the hijacked airliner smashed into the very area of the Pentagon that had just undergone a renovation to strengthen the building against a terrorist attack. The death toll could have been much worse. Evey said the hijacked aircraft hit a portion of the building that had been renovated and reinforced with blast resistant windows, a special reinforced steel construction, and even fire-resistant Kevlar cloth."?(September 9, 2002 Monday TRANSCRIPT: # 090901cb.467) Ms. Manfield chooses the expression 'ironic' to describe these bizarre facts. That's perhaps one word. Absurd and criminally suspicious could easily be two others.

So from a mile out, the man who could not properly land a Cessna at a small airport in Maryland weeks earlier, zeroes in on the conveniently chosen western façade of the Pentagon, flies 20 feet off the ground in a Boeing 757 at 400 mph, clips a number of lamp poles on his way in, apparently providing no adverse interference to his flight path, then runs into a tree and a generator trailer, before depositing the enormous aircraft perfectly in between the first and second floor of the United States' military headquarters. Leaving no visible scratch on the Pentagon lawn, no large sections of airplane, no cars from the adjacent I-395 disturbed by the enormous jet-wake, and no publicly available video evidence of this incredible feat - despite the existence of at least 83 cameras on buildings and lamp posts encircling the Pentagon.

"I shan't get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH. A discussion on ground effect energy, vortex compression, downwash reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the scope of this article. Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-lbs airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH. The author, a pilot and aeronautical engineer, challenges any pilot in the world to do so in any large high-speed aircraft that has a relatively low wing-loading (such as a commercial jet). I.e., to fly the craft at 400 MPH, 20 feet above ground in a flat trajectory over a distance of one mile. (Remember that when a plane is landing conventionally, it is traveling somewhere around 150 mph, producing SIGNIFICANTLY less wake than a plane traveling at 400 mph.)

"Furthermore, it is known that the craft impacted the Pentagon's ground floor. For purposes of reference: If a 757 were placed on the ground on its engine nacelles (I.e., gear retracted as in flight profile), its nose would be about fifteen feet above the ground! Ergo, for the aircraft to impact the ground floor of the Pentagon, Hanjour would have needed to have flown in with the engines buried in the Pentagon lawn. Some pilot. At any rate, why is such ultra-low-level flight aerodynamically impossible? Because the reactive force of the hugely powerful downwash sheet, coupled with the compressibility effects of the tip vortices, simply will not allow the aircraft to get any lower to the ground than approximately one half the distance of its wingspan - until speed is drastically reduced, which, of course, is what happens during normal landings."

In response to Sagadevan's essay, a pilot contacted the writer to report the following. And while it doesn't reference Flight 77 specifically, surely the comments apply to all flights that morning. Including AA 77:

"Regarding your comments on flight simulators, several of my colleagues and I have tried to simulate the 'hijacker's' final approach maneuvers into the towers on our company 767 simulator. We tried repeated tight, steeply banked 180 turns at 500 mph followed by a fast rollout and lineup with a tall building. More than two-thirds of those who attempted the maneuver failed to make a 'hit'. How these rookies who couldn't fly a trainer pulled this off is beyond comprehension."

Quite tellingly, on the morning of 9/11, before the shock and awe and relentless re-telling and reshaping of the official story had a chance to trump all logic and critical analysis, this following clip shows other expert incomprehension as to the level of skill it would have required to carry out the flight maneuvers displayed in the strikes. It was broadcast on ABC news in the hours just after the attacks. Or consider this early speculation on the failure of navigation systems, before people even considered the unreasonable possibility of untrained pilots being able to fly huge airplanes with such expertise.

Even the director of the flight school at which the supposed hijackers trained found it impossible to believe the expert aviation maneuvers pulled off on the morning of 9/11 could have been executed by any of the alleged pilots. "My opinion is I don't think it is possible. I have spoken to many captains from the airlines and they say there is no way what the planes did could they have done that (sic). They changed altitude. They changed speed. They changed direction. They had to know about the equipment to do what they had to do and there is no way that could have been done." There is, in fact, an entire website and organization of pilots and aeronautical engineers who have banded together to demand an open, public inquiry into ALL the unbelievable flight maneuvers pulled off on the morning of September 11. They have done studies and experiments, and have offered their expert opinions and analyses on many of the events of 9/11. Their aforementioned and excellent website is: pilotsfor911truth.org. These experts and professionals in the field of aviation with nothing to gain from the exposure of 9/11 have concluded that the official story is bogus, and that the officially blamed perpetrators and hijackers had no chance of pulling off the maneuvers we saw on the morning of 9/11.

So who or what did? Could Flight 77, indeed all the aircrafts in question on the morning of 9/11, have somehow been over-ridden, or swapped out (as with the plan in Operation Northwoods) and then guided remotely by sophisticated navigation systems? The technology does exist to fly planes remotely - with a responsiveness and a sophistication far beyond the capacities of a human pilot. And in another of the wildly unbelievable coincidences that have proved commonplace in the narrative of 9/11, the former CEO of the world's leading remote aviation technology company, System Planning Corporation, is Dov Zakheim. In May of 2001, four months before 9/11, Mr. Zakheim was appointed Undersecretary of Defense and Comptroller of the Pentagon - putting him in charge of the Defense Department's vast, bottomless sums of money. Unsurprising, and even more intriguing, Zakheim was also a founding member and co-author of PNAC's seminal document "Rebuilding America's Defenses", the document calling for the radical neo-Con restructuring of American foreign and domestic policy, a restructuring the authors famously said would be unlikely "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."

Why are these people not being investigated? Why are these coincidences and connections not being questioned and de-constructed by the media and investigators armed with subpoena power? Why am I, and random school teachers and college students and 'unemployed hacks', doing this work? How many dots do we need before they connect themselves?