ATFS Crash was perfectly civil (if slightly abrupt) in his response to this, and has argued his points well. If he’s become a little abrasive it’s probably because of your own indignant and defensive replies, Kernowglyn. I feel you’ve overreacted somewhat, which is understandable when you’ve put yourself out there with something like this. If you were posting in good faith there’s no need to feel like that about it; just accept the criticism with good grace.

Your interpretation of the term ‘perfectly civil’ does not accord with mine. One good thing about the previous exchange is that ATFS Crash no longer calls himself an ‘Ace’.

This is the only one I’m aware of which fits with your pal’s time frame:-

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=67582

Thank you kindly! Message has been sent to Kiwiland.:)

The Hustler could be a challenge to fly,and unforgiving of failure but when you consider the date it first flew and the enormous increase of speed and rate of climb over any bomber before it, it is not surprising that it had some severe limitations.

I haven’t hear costs mentioned yet, but that might be rather academic if the question is “Can we afford not to have such a system?”

Excellent. Had never seen that before.

a

I suspect that it is a fake. I suspect much of the information in the email is true, however I think it might be fabricated from facts. I am skeptical Pat Gilmore wrote the alleged emails and I supect much of the claims are false.

So you don’t think you have to support your claims, but anyone that doubt you has to?

No such thing. It was on another forum that it was doubted. I asked the writer of that post (a friend of mine) for his reasons. As I didn’t want to be involved with perpetrating ‘dubious’ information I immediately notified this forum.

Newforest’s has posted a very good skepticism to doubt your post. I don’t know if Newforest’s claims are true, but the logic of his skepticism is sound.

Do try to follow your own logic.

Why should we spoon feed you every little detail about why we think it is fake?

I grovel at the feet of a genius. What do you think a forum is? I will tell you that it is a place for debate. You seem to think that it is for mannerless put-downs and tantrums.

There are several things in the letter that makes me suspicious it is fake.

If you were professional pilot and someone else claimed to be a professional pilot and wanted to see the cockpit. While the visitor pilot that claimed to be certified on that type of aircraft was is in the jump seat proved to be very unfamiliar with the aircraft type, would not that set off an alarm bell?????? I would have escorted the visitor out of the cockpit immediately, and I would have radioed security to give him a little greeting and debriefing at the next destination, I would also alert the crew of the discrepancies and suspicions and asked them to keep an eye on him.

I suspect this e-mail may be a fake released as a publicity stunt to spark interest in their movie. I suspect you and your alleged trusted source has been duped.

I am not going to tell you every reason I think it is a fake, because the wrong people might be listening, so next time they could make a better fake. Discretion is part of security.

Having served in the intelligence services after my flying career I was of course completely unaware of that!

If it is publicly known that Atta flew from Baltimore to Atlanta on July 26, 2001, then why isn’t it listed?
* July 1, 2001: Atta flies from Boston to New York City.
* July 3, 2001: Atta flies from Newark to Fort Lauderdale.
* July 7 or July 8 or July 9, 2001: Atta fly from Miami to Madrid, Spain via Zurich.
* July 19, 2001: Return flight to America, Fort Lauderdale, Florida via Atlanta’s Hartsfield International Airport.
* Late July, 2001: Atta flies to Newark, New Jersey to meet with other hijackers in the area.
* July 30, 2001: Atta flies back from New Jersey to Florida.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Atta
http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/profiles/generate_movements.php?name=Mohamed+Atta