page 5 in particular

Good God: http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/csrt/Set_5_0465-0672_Revis...

This reads like Kafka.

What a surreal low-point in our nation's history.

Vesa, I think it's fair to remark on the lack of skills of the 9/11 pilots. But it would be unwise to trumpet the difficulties they faced (if they flew the planes at all?!).

Here's a pilot Frank describing the automated features of a 767:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/dazinith/114049702377915793/#73509

There's also a very interesting discussion posted at a website of experienced flyers. They are initially asked about a pilot with minimal skills assisting a 767 back to land when the usual pilots are sick or disabled in some way. The early responses are all the same: forget about it, you will crash and burn before you get near the airport. When the original poster reveals 9/11 basis for his question then suddenly the tune changes and everything becomes possible. It's an interesting read:
http://www.dynamictruth.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=0...

ground effect is discussed here:
http://www.avweb.com/news/airman/185905-1.html

The article by Nila Sagadevan on "The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft without Training" should be viewed with caution in my view for several reasons:

(1) NS describes obscuring cloud cover on 9/11 when there are many reports (inc. official weather notices) that the weather was clear.

(2) NS suggests the (ex-veteran) pilots should have been able to flip the 767 over and "break the neck" of any terrorist in this way. From various reports this would seem (a)structurally dangerous for the plane itself (b) probably injure passengers c) not be consistent with hijacking training provided to pilots.

(3) NS claims considerable navigational difficulties would have existed. Various accounts (see Frank, above) suggest otherwise.

(4). NS claims to be a qualified pilot but (allegedly) is not registered on the FAA database (he may have European or Indian licensing, but again, at what level?)

(5) Other than the various comments provided in the article from those who trained the pilots there is very little that can be taken as authoritatively determining the issue of the difficulties facing the terrorist pilots one way or the other. It's an opinion piece rather than evidence. Personally, I am not a big fan of having to defend 'maybe' arguments or glaring errors of fact. There are enough difficulties explaining evidence discrepancies in 9/11 without covering the gaps in opinion pieces.

There are some good points in the Sagadevan article. But I find it interesting that he has published other articles at Scholars for 9/11 Truth where he is a member, yet he has chosen NOT to publish "The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft without Training" at their site. My feeling is that a rewritten and more argued version of this article could be helpful. I have emailed Sagadevan (as a supporter of the article) but I have received no replies to my questions.

I am not a big fan of this article.

...no, it is the right one.