I must confess that I actually thought I hated this man and everything he was about until I started experiencing an overload of inaccurate and fictitious information the USG keeps pounding out and calling it the truth … so I decided to try an independent review of what I thought I knew and didn’t really. So I never watched or read anything Moore was involved with but I was more than willing to tell you how screwed up he was. So I rented the movie from Netflix and watched it … and I was amazed.
I have watched it twice now and I cannot find one shred of much information that is not factual or accurate. Beyond some idiosyncrasies in his sense of humor (they are funny); he presents very valid arguments and backs them up with documentation and interviews. He brings to light many of the things I have discovered in my own research into deceit, terrorism and the USG.
When I was a liberal (before I knew better) the only accurate information had to come from another liberal else it was a lie??? Later when I made my second mistake and became a conservative I learned the error of my ways … the truth could only be had from like ilk … so imagine my confusion when I called the neolibs and neocons for what they are and went independent. Suddenly, I have no source of valid information at all now (seemingly hehehe). I have had no success at all trying to walk the moderate tightrope between all the sharks without one side or the other dragging me down, go figure.
As far as Democrats/Republicans are concerned, their only care about the independent majority is how many they can acquire each election. But no matter which side is the best recruiter or who gets most independent votes … matters that concern the moderates will largely be ignored or sidelined and the neo-politicians will go their own course virtually unrestricted and completely unaccountable.
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.
It's also interesting that you think Michael Moore has a 'message'. If you're going to argue that we must perforce give credence to the opinions of 'experts' like the 'pilot', what is Moore's expertise in any area having anything remotely to do with 9/11?
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
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?
Don't get your hopes up, Boobz.
At least the pilot (assuming he was legit) had some tangential connection to something related to 9/11 - personally having piloted 2 of the aircraft types involved. That at least gives him a basis for an informed opinion, whether right or wrong.
At least I've had a first-hand experience which informs my opinion.
But, Moore? He has no basis for an opinion* on anything other than making flicks and profiting hugely from attacking the system that allowed him to do so. If I ever had the desire to sucker people into making me filthy rich, I'd value his opinions on that subject rather highly.
*He may be a pilot himself, now that I think about it. At least he has a Gulfstream or something.
Listen again. It is common for pilots to use a specific pronoun (the) when referring to a class of aircraft. 'I flew the 757' may mean he flew the aircraft with the tail number that was involved or it may mean he 'flew the 757', meaning a bunch of different 757's in a particular airline's fleet. But that's really irrelevant, any 757 will do.
Whether he flew a specific airplane or simply the same model of aircraft, his opinion may or may not be correct, may or may not be based on factual data.
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.
He does have a message. He plants doubt which should make the viewer say to him/herself don't believe everything they are telling you. If you don't doubt to some degree some of the things stated by the administration or what was put into the 9/11 Commission Report then maybe you should rethink that position since it should be obvious by now that some things were manipulated so that the event could be exploited and so that mistakes (poor decisions) made within the intelligence services could be whitewashed.
... oops
Boobz -
Since you've gone there, what is wrong with your reading comprehension? Do you not understand the difference between a flight and an aircraft? Do you not understand that pilots routinely refer to the entire fleet of 757's as 'the 757'? Do you not understand that I wrote that those distinctions are in any event irrelevant? He flew 757's, which at least gives him a basis for an informed opinion. Whether he literally flew the actual physical planes involved or had experience flying the same model as the planes involved doesn't matter, and has no bearing on the validity of his opinion. Which, again, is what it is - an opinion.
Smoothseas -
I think you've taken that in a context not intended. He has a message alright - 'Here, I'll permit you to watch my collection of suppositions, innuendos and selectively edited 'facts' in exchange for money.' I was referring to using him as some sort of 'expert', tangential or otherwise, on the events of 9/11, in the manner Boobz used the pilot.
I have a lot of doubt about the 9/11 Commission report, but the doubt has more to do with it's 'CYA' aspects than anything else. This government was not capable of orchestrating the events of 9/11, pure and simple, but it was more than capable of burying any culpability for failure to see what was developing and of failing to learn the correct lessons from the terrorist attacks. It still shocks and galls me that Jamie Gorelick, the principal architect of the 'information firewall' between the CIA and the FBI, was on a Commission which should have been investigating her role, or more properly, the policy she enforced.
On another point, there is a difference between 'responding to' and 'exploiting', and it usually turns on which side of a political argument one falls. There certainly are folks out there with a 'Never let a good crisis go to waste' mentality, who seek to exploit unrelated events to achieve unrelated goals. Been true since the beginnings of society, I'd imagine. But whether someone is 'acting in good faith' or 'exploiting' (the term imputes bad faith) usually depends on whether one approves or disapproves of the actions taken.
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.
Smooth -
'Maybe someday' you'll pay attention. I wasn't talking about 'most people' - I laid out the context for you.
And thanks for the generous help, but I'm well aware of the dictionary definition of 'exploit'. In its common vernacular, it is meant to imply bad faith or bad behavior, whether present or not. Nothing to do with Politics (with a capital P), per se - I was using the term in its generic meaning, though Political arguments can certainly provide examples. 'Seizing an opportunity' is generally considered a positive thing; 'exploiting a situation or person' generally has negative connotations. You know this, though.
Also well aware that Gorelick didn't invent the thing out of whole cloth, but she took it to a level not really required by statute or policy. And was a principal player in the drama, which is why she had no business on the Commission. That, too, is not politics - don't care whether R or D, C or P/L.
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.
One last try - I don't care about 'sides' and said all sides failed.
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?
I should have been a bit more specific:
This government was not capable of faking (fabricating & covering up the fabrication) the events of 9/11, pure and simple.
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.
CYA is very real and eternal. 'Cover-up' is what's 'magic' - there was nothing to 'cover up' besides inattention and incompetence.
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
Your conclusion (and that of the author of your link) is not supported by the information cited. Calls could have gotten through. Just because technology intentionally designed to facilitate air-ground cellphone calls wasn't implemented until later doesn't mean calls could not possibly have connected. If you really think making dozens of faked cellphone calls, many to people capable of recognizing the voices of the purported callers, was part of 'the plan', well knock yourself out. Just too many moving parts to the conspiracy for it to have not fallen apart, no matter the 'unexplained' technical aspects.
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.
Smoothseas, I was looking at a 'cover up' as an after action activity is all. Viewing the definition though tells me there are other ways of looking at this. My pore old dictionary has many synonyms but provides only one definition (transitive verb to try to conceal that something illegal, immoral, or undesirable has happened or how or why it happened). Sorry about any confusion. I know the base line story had to be worked out in advance, but I consider that the planning stage where evidence was planted for easy ‘discovery’. Then there was the actual ‘attack’ or the action stage and we all know the results of that. What’s done is done … and then the cover up begins. This is where NIST Inc. and other political entities come into the picture … this is where the ‘cover up’ blossomed into a reality with a life of its own, seemingly. Semantics again???
I am sure there are quite a lot of people that could have been added to the list … I was just trying to make a point though.
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.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
