The little pilot clip was interesting, but it's another case of claiming what actually happened 'couldn't have happened'.

About 3 years ago, I 'flew' a major airline 737 simulator, spending about 90 minutes in the left seat.  No prior pilot training or experience whatsoever, unless you count playing computer warbird flight sims on occasion.  Within about 30 minutes I was making smooth takeoffs, making varying approaches and sticking smooth landings.  I had no difficulty performing a variety of 'airborne' maneuvers including joining up in formation with other aircraft, something my pilot friend, who ran the sim, says is inherently difficult even for trained pilots.  He told me, and he was quite sincere, that I handled the 'aircraft' as well as or better than some of his junior pilots and asked me, only half in jest, not to let on to others how easy it was.  He also related that the tolerances built into commercial aircraft performance characteristics are large, that they had big 'margins of error' and that the aircraft are 'very forgiving' by design.  He earns his paycheck by knowing and following procedures designed to ensure safe flight, knowing how avoid mistakes and how to manage the aircraft when something breaks or goes wrong.  (Note to real pilots out there - I know it's a lot more than that, just trying to nutshell it).

Once an aircraft has been trimmed for flight, steering the thing is quite simple and I personally have no doubt those dudes, who had had real training in the physics of flight and basic navigation, had actually flown and had spent months planning course settings, etc., could have gotten from Boston to New York and slammed those poor souls on board into the Twin Towers.

Now you have not just that pilot's opinion, but a non-pilot's opinion.

Daiwa, what a surprise! Thanks (I think) for at least taking me seriously for a change. But, I started out with an expert of my own (I sure hope he is, cannot find much about him though). If I am not mistaken, he was talking about the Pentagon bombing not the twin towers. I will stipulate that those attacks (towers) could have been flown by novices with adequate training (I’m sure that has not been established though) but there are other problems with this idea than just driving the plane. I am well known for how quickly and easily pick up new things ... not many people are so blessed IMO. I am what is referred to as a Jack of all Trades ... I know a lot of stuff about a lot of things but am master of none (because I haven’t invested enough time and effort), bummer that part. I would call your attention to the difference between simulator training' and actually piloting an aircraft. If things like this are so simple, why do the pilots around Cecil Field here actual use hands on training year around and I know they don’t do it for fun and I assume that they already know what they are doing? You know we lost the transponders on those planes?  What does your experience tell you about the maneuvering at the Pentagon … and amateur piloting?

Airplane hijackers on the up-and-up (so to speak) would (should) have had a great concern for NRAD after all it is touted as the best of its kind in the world. I would think time would have been one of the most critical spoilers for them … and they should have acted accordingly but there was no observable indication that time was even a concern … like they had all the time in the world, go figure. I don’t have all those answers … that’s what discussions are for. I don’t have a problem with being proved wrong, but I am pretty tired now of opponents dismissing my opinions out of hand without further ado or explanations. And further if one is actually prone to believe the USG for all their wisdom, accuracy and honesty well … this would be a good place to go to define ‘insanity’.

http://www.public-action.com/911/4flights.html

What does Moore need experience for ... an opinion, a message or a theory? How many film producers do you know who are experts with their masterpieces? Are directors of psychotically insane murders and serial killers … are you intimating that they can only do this through a personal expertise in psychology??? And if you haven’t even (?) watched the movie … from whence does your insight come … the mouths of other equally informed people such as yourself? Personally I don’t care what you “creed” as expertise (take it or leave it, who cares besides you? … and I never said Moore even had common sense let alone an expert opinion about anything. Why do you try to manipulate stuff like this??? How am I supposed to answer such nonsense? Are you also expressing abject denial of the pilots credibility … based on what??? ... on his politics, personality, looks ... on what?

I am not arguing anything yet … just simply trying to show a clip (mistake #1 I guess). Cannot seem to get over this seemingly insurmountable hurdle though, go figure. Is there a list of acceptable experts I can look at?

Wrong, he stated he flew two of the actual planes supposed to have been used on 9/11. (Listen to the first six words in the clip, hahaha.) Got to be a plus in his corner I would expect. I don’t care about Moore or ‘his opinions’. When I watch a movie directed by an idiot (my thoughts at the time), I myself am not in search of their ‘opinions’ like many seem to be. I called all attention where I could to the news clips and the empirical evidence produced by someone of a ‘better’ caliber and do not remember supporting anything Moore said anywhere or at any time … but to listen to you talk, all he and I do is swap spit being best friends and all hahaha. I myself can shit a bigger list of Moore’s actual inadequacies (not your list) than his plusses … so what. I guess I don’t understand many arguments you guys have perpetuated herein as I think they are for the most part quite petty, insincere and instantly dismissive of any argument??? Do you actually know Moore as well as you profess to because you seem to be much more knowledgeable on the him than I am. So unless you object, I recommend we forget about Moore the person and move on, hahaha to something at least meriting a discussion.

What in the world is wrong with your analytical skills? The captain said and I will quote it because it is so difficult to listen for one’s self:” I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11, the flight number 175 and flight 93 the 757 that allegedly went down at Shanksville and flight 175 is the aircraft that’s a …  alleged to hit the south  tower” And all you had to do is listen for 20 seconds out of 53 second clip and you wouldn’t have had to present this so many times. What am I supposed to be listening to if not his words hahaha.

... oops

Most people don't take him as an expert on the subject matter in his movies. I think most people including BT know that he is a movie maker and an activist.

You should take your politics out since it really does nothing but discredit your argument. The information firewall goes way back and has developed over decades due to several events. Both sides played the CYA game and that should be obvious. The wall certainly played a part however it was there for good reason. Doesn't really matter anymore though because the civil liberties it was meant to protect started flying out the window when the Patriot Act flew in.  

Maybe it does to you since you are once again injecting politics over the underlying issue however:

1. To employ to the greatest possible advantage

does not imply acting in bad faith.

Some people don't take political sides and maybe someday you will learn there are actually good reasons underlying both sides not just one's own side.

Actually it is playing politics, Saying "not required by statute" is fine, however saying "not required by policy" is playing politics. What she did was help draft policy and your disagreement with that policy is ALL ABOUT POLITICS. In reality you simply restated what other ideologues have quoted about the issue. Janet Reno was the AG and she was the one who actually set the policy so saying that Gorelick took the policy to a new level is as best I can tell simply restating something that isn't quite true. When Ashcroft took over his Justice Dept ratified the same policy as well. Hard to point fingers when you know all the facts. Looks like neither side saw what was coming, both sides took to pointing fingers when it came, and both sides tried to cover their rear-ends as the dust settled.

 

I know, how could anyone be so naïve as to think otherwise hahaha. It could only have been accomplished by a bunch of Muslims moving from cave to cave way across the big water without reliable modern communications ... who else could it have been?  If the world’s only superpower only knew which end of the stick was sharp well … they might have thwarted those rag wearing miscreants and stopped ‘The Master Plan’, hehehe.

The report from the 9/11 Commission, co-authored by Gorelick, asserts that the 'wall' limiting the ability of federal agencies to cooperate had existed since the eighties and is in fact not one singular wall but a series of restrictions passed over the course of over twenty years. How is ‘seizing an opportunity’ any different than ‘exploiting an opportunity’ on face value? It all depends on the results and in this case, the harsher word ‘exploit’ is more than applicable. “A 1995 Department of Justice memorandum states that the procedures her memorandum put in place for the investigation of the first WTC bombing "go beyond what is legally required... to prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation." Politics as usual!

“Former Air Force fighter pilot Russ Wittenberg, who flew over 100 combat missions in Vietnam, sat in the cockpit for Pan Am and United for over 30 years, and previously flew two of the actual airplanes that were allegedly hijacked on 9/11 (United Airlines Flight 175 & 93), does not believe the government's official 9/11 conspiracy theory”... If you disagree (why???), at least have the courtesy to site something besides your opinion?

No problems with that one as evidenced by reality ... but you do have to admit that the USG is at least one of the best at covering their debauchery … be that the case here or not. I am sure you have some explanation of why a cover up is unlikely, unfounded or difficult to do for that matter. The cover up is the easy part again as evidenced by reality … whatever was done was the ‘magic’ part and that is what I am after.

All there is to a cover up is to stand firm and deny everything no matter how many times you get cloven by the truth … what is so difficult about that. It just so happens we are discussing the USG here, the ones controlling the media (in cahoots with?). Obviously you haven’t polled the rest of the world on this issue. I don’t know about anyone else but when I hear ‘conspiracy’, I think of religious folk who think the whole world is conspiring for their utter destruction (hahaha) or I think of a government that is conspiring to monopolize the world and all its resources. What I don’t associate with a conspiracy are groups of professional people like “Pilots for 9/11 truth” arguing the impossible aviation logistics (using USG data), “Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth” arguing structural integrity, building design, building construction and the possibility of  ‘free fall’ under those conditions (using USG data), etc. Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice challenging just about everything controversial and only god knows where they get their stuff from. There are of course the kooks and weirdoes that flock to any cause … that everyone must filter well. But there is expert testimony from firefighters, police and people on the scene (and their 911 truth organizations). These are local NY’ers not a bunch of red necks in Alabama looking for a cause. Next time you are flying at five miles up … be daring and try to use your cell phone to call home hahaha (maybe it is fixed now, but I don’t think so). It is my understanding that millions are being spent today to enable this technology and all these idiots had to do is ask how it was accomplished in 2001. I mean the list just doesn’t end as almost nothing at all adds up in an after action review. It is crucial to the USG and consequently the 911 commission … that the hijackers be well identified by people on the planes thus the phone calls which identified the onboard terrorists down to their skivvies. Since there were no reported survivors, this detailed information had to come from phone calls only. And many of the 911 calls could not have been made due to prevailing technology in 2001 and the height the calls had to be made from (using USG data).  

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO408B.html

The USG is more than likely one of the worst at covering things up. If they were one of the best you would never have found out about many of the coverups that they attempted and failed to ultimately cover up. There are so many potential sources for leaks in this government.

That's not a cover up. That's the propaganda that follows when a coverup is actually exposed. It is unfortunate that some people choose to believe the word of politicians over the word of non politicians when coverups are exposed.

Maybe you should include the FBI and CIA whistleblowers. They are the ones who actually knew what the intelligence was and were either told by their politically appointed dept heads to edit their reports to add bias, or stopped from further investigation and/or prosecution of specific cases related to 9/11. These are the people who provide actual information about how the politicians tried to cover their butts.

 

 

Daiwa, so your defense is “…calls could have gotten through” huh. I provided a source that says differently and this is all you got??? I am quite sure the technology is paramount myself being a technical person. You assume way too much for a healthy conversation. All I said was the calls were faked … I didn’t say they didn’t take place how could I … we have the recordings. If you believe the only way those calls could have been faked was to have some idiot somewhere making them … well that my friend is your problem.  It did fall apart silly boy … that’s why these discussions are taking place all around the world. Is it your contention then that all the ‘experts’ voicing their concerns over 911 are idiots, anti-American or just political hacks … that seems to be what you are implying? “… no matter the unexplained technical aspects”, huh. Why do you have so much trouble when someone else more adventurous (like me) wants to understand those ‘aspects’? You don’t seem at all interested in providing any proof of your own … just slamming those that have other possibilities and theories in mind.