Rudi Dekkers, the owner of Huffman Aviation, the flight school where alleged 9/11 hijackers Mohamed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi trained at, dropped some bombshell revelations on the September 11, 2011 episode of Erskine Overnight, in speaking about his new book, Guilty by Association.
He said he never saw Atta and al-Shehhi ever pray when they were at his flight school, and that the voice purported to be Atta’s from the alleged cockpit voice recorder didn’t sound at all like Atta’s to him.
He also said that Atta was a mediocre student and was warned six weeks into his training that he would be kicked out unless he shaped up. Ultimately, upon graduation, Atta and al-Shehhi were only qualified to fly a small plane with a few seats, and not a Boeing 767 jumbo jet, as he and al-Shehhi are alleged to have flown so skillfully into the World Trade towers.
For my other reporting on 9/11, see Will Ron Paul throw 9/11 truth under the bus again, like he did in 2008?
[...] Huffman Aviation flight school owner where two of the alleged 9/11 hijackers had trained, and for the bombshell revelations he provided, and I reported [...]
[...] more on 9/11, see my article, Rudi Dekkers drops some bombshell 9/11 revelations on the tenth anniversary of the [...]
[...] At the time, I was wondering what he had to say about 9/11. I’d still like to ask him about that. Only this time, I’d specifically like to ask him what he thinks about the flight school owner, Rudi Dekkers, saying the alleged ringleader of the 9/11 hijackers, Mohamed Atta, was never seen praying in the special area he had set up, and that it wasn’t Atta’s voice on the purported cockpit recording that officials say was his. [...]
[...] 09/11 Rudi Dekkers drops some bombshell 9/11 revelations on the tenth anniversary of the attacks [...]
[...] too many Americans don’t effectively have enough of a distrust of government, or they’d question something like 9/11 more. The Protestant work ethic, rugged individualism and personal responsibility is also out the [...]
Someone picked up this story and put it into a YouTube clip.
[...] September 13, 2011 [...]
I’d like to say that FauxCapitalist has deleted nothing I have posted – which is a rare thing amongst conspiracists. Most of them delete any and all dissent – FC has not.
Thanks.
I totally disagree with your view on this, and much else no doubt, but you allowed my posts to remain – that’s something very few of your fellow-travellers will allow but which is to your credit. Kudos.
[...] Rudi Dekkers drops some bombshell 9/11 revelations on the tenth anniversary of the attacks « Exposi…. Like this:LikeBe the first to like this [...]
Ron Paul is an advocate for truth, so anyone who suffers under the lies is a potential Paul voter. The truth part is what draws the 9-11 people, they are very interested in an honest politician. As he should, Ron Paul is stepping aside the 9-11 issue because the real issue is the endless wars that 9-11 triggered and the cost to us daily in lives and money. As we argue about 9-11 people die in wars 9-11 started. It doesn’t serve anyone to argue about conspiracy, Paul is more intent on a mandate to bring our troops truly home and end unnecessary wars and stop wandering the earth plundering other countries for wealth and treasure.
[...] Rudi Dekkers drops some bombshell 9/11 revelations on the tenth anniversary of the attacks [...]
[...] a Comment // Tweet Fauxcapitalist.com September 12, [...]
[...] Rudi Dekkers drops some bombshell 9/11 revelations on the tenth anniversary of the attacks [...]
[...] Rudi Dekkers drops some bombshell 9/11 revelations on the tenth anniversary of the attacks [...]
Folks, Ron Paul sticks out enough to be demeaned by the mass media. If he were to question 9/11 now then any chance of winning would be killed instantly. As of now he stands ready and willing to reinvestigate 9/11, and that’s good enough. If elected we would no doubt see a sincere attempt to get at the truth.
Let’s be a little realistic. Can’t have everything we want right away if we are to change this country,
Like Ron says, “stay away from entangling alliances”. If he came out for 9/11 Truth he would be taken to the slaughterhouse. He has said he would support another investigation – that’s good enough and better than anyone else’s position
Seems to me the most crucial piece of information is left out of this discussion. How the *** did that guy Atta fly a plane into a building in such a precise way? You’d expect him to hit the first skyscraper in his path lol
It really isn’t especially difficult to turn a plane, nor alter its height. It’s straightforward.
Landing is difficult, and dangerous. Navigating A to B towards the biggest building in NY is not.
I could do it.
Moreover, as the subject of this article confirms, Atta had flight training, successfully completing a course in flying (small) planes. If you can pass a small-plane course, you can certainly fly an airborne jet into the biggest buildings in NY. Easy.
Then you must be a better pilot than John Lear, son of the inventor of the Learjet, who said on Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell years ago that assuming the flights were manned, it would’ve required many hours of training with a jumbo jet flight simulator, and the number of hours, if I remember correctly, was somewhere in the hundreds range.
There aren’t many such simulators around, implying the hijackers had government knowledge, if not assistance.
@FC below:
So, because someone said it, it must be true? It just is not true.
For example, one can use FlightSimX to learn ALL the controls and basic procedures for flying small and large aircraft. It is used as an educational tool, a very cheap simulator. A lot of training pilots use it for exactly that.
At its most simple, one would need disengage any autopilot and assume manual control. Or one could even enter co-ordinates for the autopilot and just kick-back until in the vicinity. It really isn’t very difficult. It’s just insane – not difficult.
No, because Lear is an experienced pilot, he knows of what he speaks.
Now what about Hani Hanjour, the alleged hijacker pilot of the flight that allegedly hit the Pentagon? Even Wikipedia, an establishment mouthpiece, despite some people thinking it’s hacked together by kids living in their parent’s basements, cites sources that he couldn’t even properly fly a Cessna, and then a month later, on 9/11, he supposedly pulls off a 330-degree turn and dove thousands of feet to hit the Pentagon without even scraping the grass?
Given that these guys had official flight training, you’d think they would’ve shown better flying aptitude prior to the big day!
none of which provides the least bit of evidence they didn’t do it.
but nevermind that, huh?
Here’s a transcript of the appearance by John Lear that I referenced. The interview was done on November 2, 2003.
http://www.whale.to/b/lear1.html
In it, he says it probably took about a year of training for the pilots to be able to fly into the World Trade towers as they did, and that with his over 19,000 hours of flight training on various jets, he probably wouldn’t have been able to pull it off the first time, making your claim, “Someone,” of being able to have pulled off the attacks by training with FlightSimX, humourous at best.
In fact, Lear said there was “No possibility!” of the alleged hijackers being able to pull off the attacks with flight training on small airplanes, as they had trained with.
If you couldn’t fly a cessna it might be -at 500mph even harder to hit the target, especially the twin towers. Russ Wittenberg who actually flew some of the 9/11 aircraft and has 30years or so experience flying aircraft said he couldnt do it – I think know who I believe
“Someone” is a shill…
Look, either your “friend” wasn’t a real Muslim or you just made that up. Either way, GTFO.
Oh, it isn’t true, because it doesn’t fit your preconception of how the world is.
Silly.
I had a friend who was muslim, a supporter of Al Qaida (american infidels, blah blah blah)
I worked with him often, all day. I never saw him pray.
One shouldn’t make the mistake of expecting muslims to be any more or less inclined to strictly follow the tenets of their religion. For example, the belief that Atta’s supposed visits to strip-clubs betrays his Islamic extremism…… Why expect only Muslims to be entirely consistent? Silly.
Given that the official narrative is that these were devout Muslims on a mission from Allah, I personally find it significant that he said neither of the two used the prayer area he specifically had set up for Muslims to pray.
The five daily prayers are so essential to the practice of Islam such that the abandonment of them are regarded to nullify the effect of most of your good deeds, and in one of the schools of thought, renders you a non-Muslim.
So not only do we have two Muslims who apparently didn’t pray when they were supposed to, but also were mediocre flight students at a school that only taught them how to fly small planes.
One can’t be an Islamic extremist and visit strip-clubs too. Both are diametrically opposite. I’m a Muslim, an engineer; I pray five times a day, which include three in office. You can call me an Islamic extremist in that context. All Islamic extremists hate Al-Qaida (if at all it exists) because it serves anti-Islam in all its manifestations.
So, everyone is like you?
No, they are not. I am telling you, they are not. You are deluded to imagine otherwise.
Well said, “someone”.
” All Islamic extremists hate Al-Qaida (if at all it exists) because it serves anti-Islam in all its manifestations.”
——————-
That’s absurd. You’re really arguing that YOU don’t believe Atta et al were genuine Muslims – you are completely failing to sustain the idea that someone could definitely NOT do something which was ‘anti-Islamic’ simply because they claim to be Muslims.
So, we can reach agreement by saying Atta broke some of the explicit tenets of Islam? That does nothing to prove Atta could not have done it.
Very naive and uninformed comment. A muslim who is prepared to give his life in the name of ‘allah’ would be following the religion to a ‘T’. Time to face the facts i think.
No, that simply isn’t true at all.
It is naive to believe a “devout muslim” (or anyone else) will follow the tenets of their creed.
It is genuinely stupid to make a case resting on the supposition that Muslims (or anyone) will behave exactly as their creed suggests they should.
One could just as easily say George Bush couldn’t have launched the Iraq War etc because he’s a Christian and the Christian commandments entreat one should not kill.
So, by the reasoning shown above, George Bush could not have launched the Iraq War.
How silly.
George Bush wasn’t a Christian, judging him on the basis of Jesus’ own words: “ye shall know them by their fruits.” (Matthew 7:16)
Bush wasn’t a Christian?
What do you mean?
Bush wasn’t a Christian based on his pattern of actions. As Texas Governor, he made fun of a woman asking to be spared the death penalty, he presided over the most number of executions in the country despite shoddy evidence in many cases that led George Ryan, the governor of Illinois, to enact a moratorium in his state.
While campaigning for President, he said that Jesus was his favourite philosopher, yet took the U.S. to war against Iraq based on his alleged calling from God, which destabilized the country so that hundreds of thousands of Christians had to flee, and he repeatedly favoured Jewish Israelis over occupied Christian Palestinians, to name some of his more notable un-Christian actions.
haha – FC says “bush wasn’t a Christian based on his actions”
But FC says of Atta that “he couldn’t do what is claimed because he was a muslim”
————————-
COME ON!!!!! LOOK AT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING YOURSELF??????
Today, a prominent evangelical Christian has echoed my sentiments.
“Are Evangelical Christians Warmongers?”
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=3971
“And where are today’s evangelical Christians giving a second thought regarding their fellow Christian brothers and sisters in many of these Middle Eastern countries that are being persecuted, imprisoned, tortured, and killed by the puppet regimes being put in power by the US government–at US taxpayer (including Christian taxpayer) expense?”
And, “Someone” — don’t put words in my mouth in quotation marks that I didn’t say.
@Someone
Al Qaeda, eh? I don’t believe you. First of all, what is Al Qaeda? The BBC exposed Al Qaeda as a blanket term for small unrelated groups of ‘terrorist cells’ and Bin Laden was not their leader. He didn’t even really have a group, they exposed that his video where he walks with a cane shooting an AK-47 was made up of extras. Al Qaeda literally means ‘The Base’ but it isn’t something you would say in Arabic and the way it is pronounced sounds identical to ‘The Toilet’
Support Al Qaeda? I doubt it. If you’re telling the truth, your friend wasn’t a Muslim. He was probably Israeli pretending to be Muslim. They like to do that for some reason.
There was a rumor that a Detroit-area Lebanese restaurant was owned by Al Qaeda. The owners fled the country for tax evasion and one of the sons did kill a guy but the Al Qaeda rumor came about because they flew a Hezbollah flag. Yeah, Hezbollah. A terrorist organization ONLY because Israel says so and whatever Israel says their friends comply. Most of the world sees Hezbollah for what they really are – a resistance group of freedom fighters. I wear by Hezbollah flag when I go to the mall. It really ticks off the illegals working the Dead Sea kiosks.
My friend was an Israeli pretending to be a muslim?
Are you serious?
He was not. Deal with it.
Rather than try to bend the world to conform with your beliefs, you should adjust yourself to the world. Not the other way around – that’s silly.
A muslim supporting Al Qaida isn’t really a muslim………..but Al Qaida’s Mohammed Atta couldn’t have gone to a stripbar or committed 911 because he *was* a Muslim…?
Do you realise how ridiculously you are bending your own precepts there?
That shows how little the rumour-spreaders knew about Al Qaeda and Hezbollah, considering they are two very different organizations, with one being Sunni and the other being Shiite, which mix like oil and water.
Good one about the illegals working at the Dead Sea kiosks — Israel gets so much praise in the U.S. mass media for allegedly having such an innovative economy in certain sectors like hi-tech and biomedical, yet overall, the conservative Heritage Foundation ranked Israel as less economically free in 2011 than neighbouring Arab country, Jordan.
FC – you didn’t add anything there
Can it be that Ron Paul feels that if he says “9-11 was an inside job”, his time will be consumed with defending himself from “patriots” throwing tantrums about him siding with conspiracy nutters?
I think that the majority of hardcore Ron Paul supporters actually think he will win the Republican nomination in 2012, and that throwing 9/11 Truth under the bus is a necessary precondition for doing so.
On the contrary, I think that not throwing it under the bus, while also not endorsing it, was/is the one wildcard that could garner him enough support to have an independent run at least as big as Ross Perot’s in 1992.
Ron Paul just made a claim that AQ attacked America because…..all the reasons OBL gave.
He’s just crapped all over the 911 Troof movement.
If OBL/AQ attacked America because of bases in SaudiaArabia, support for Israel re Palestine, etc ….. then it makes no sense to say it was a falseflag inside-job.
He’s a got a book to sell, and this is the best he can do.
Not very impressive, is it?
I can see why he came out with it just before the tenth anniversary for legitimate marketing purposes, and he certainly is justified in making at least a little bit of money, given that his guilt by association apparently cost him $12 million. But his revelations would’ve had a lot more impact if he had come out with them between 2006 to 2008 when 9/11 Truth at its height.
Here is the compromise I have made, and it is a compromise of my principles. If her gets himself on the ballot, I will waddle down to the faux elections and poke a hole in a piece of paper. Not one dime, not one minute of my time, to a man who supports the “bin Laden did it” story. The ONLY reason I compromise is because I have faced the reality that the “Election Show” will go on. I suspect Ron Paul is their anointed “Savior” – he is otherwise too “perfect.” He might actually win – won’t that be a great “Underdog” story? Once Ron Paul is the puppet and he starts dancing to the same tune, maybe folks will realize how dire the situation is. Maybe he would prove me wrong, and lead the nation back to something worth having. If so, I suspect he would be assassinated, but certainly replaced in 4 or 8 years with…? Maybe THEN people will begin to consider “Personal Sovereignty” as the basis for law. As long as we beg to be governed, we will be.
I would also vote for him if he appeared on the Presidential ballot, but after what he did in 2008, I wouldn’t give him any financial support, nor would I volunteer countless hours supporting him in the primaries.
But alas, I’m a Canadian, so I can watch from the sidelines.
Oh, I think I want to have your babies… but I am happily married and too old to have babies… I came here for the “bombshell 9-1 revelations” but can hardly wait to go read your next article… Will Ron Paul throw truth under the bus again…? I was an RP bound delegate to the RNC, and I am still stinging from the tire tracks on my back. I am also getting irritated that everyone considers 9-11 a litmus test for anyone EXCEPT Ron Paul… How DOES that work? I feel as if you NOTICED the tread pattern, and identified the hit and run driver… Thanks!
I felt the question needed to be asked based on what he did in 2008. For me, all he had to do was say he doesn’t agree with everything his supporters say, and that a new and robust 9/11 investigation is essential. Instead, he decided to throw them under the bus, and most commenters on the RonPaulForums.com site apparently supported his approach, three years later.