"debate" on "Pilots,,,,,"

CHF said:
I've asked lots of Twoofers for some names as to WHO should conduct this "new investigation."

Still no names....
Click to expand...

I was reading TLA nominations and came across this.

"Myriad" summarized the "I want a new investigation" question perfectly.

Originally Posted by Myriad

Sorry, no. The point at hand, for this moment and all moments for the foreseeable future, is "so what?"

You want an entirely independent investigation whose questions are agreed upon by Alex Jones? You've just done one. You think the results of that investigation, which you've presented here, warrant another investigation? Go right ahead, do another one. You can keep that up forever if you want to. No need to get our or anyone else's approval, or really, bother us about it at all.

Since you don't seem to be satisfied with that, it appears that you want more than just an independent investigation, which anyone (newspaper reporters, a technical study group, you, me) is free to do any time they want. You want your investigators to have some or all of the following, don't you?

- the power to subpoena witnesses
- the power to compel witnesses to appear, to take oaths to answer questions truthfully, and to answer questions they might not want to answer, by penalizing them for failing to do so, such as via the threat of contempt of court charges, perjury charges, or similar punitive action (just to be clear on what "the power to subpoena witnesses" really means)
- the security clearance necessary to permit witnesses to testify about national security secrets which they have sworn oaths not to reveal
- the power to force the U.S. military to make classified documents available for examination
- the power to press criminal charges
- the power to arrest and try individuals on those charges, and mete out punishment

If you don't want these things, then you've already got your independent investigations, as many of them as you feel like conducting, so I don't see what you're complaining about.

If you do want any of those things, then you've got a problem. Because in the U.S. the authority to do those things is vested, under the U.S. Constitution, in various branches of the U.S. Government. (State and local governments too, and police forces acting under their auspices, but their jurisdiction is limited, under the Federal Constitution, in ways that would make it difficult conduct an effective 9/11 investigation. However, that might be your best option available, to demand a new investigation by, for instance, the City or State of New York.) If anyone else -- Alex Jones or Judge Judy or Ban Ki-moon or Scooby-Doo -- sends me a subpoena, I can (and will) throw it in the trash, or show up at their "hearing" and recite the script from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, and there's nothing they can do about it.

Either the investigators' authority derives from the government, or they're a bunch of private individuals or gangsters or foreign agents who have no authority, and to whom revealing national security secrets would itself be a crime.

So again, I ask you to answer these questions about how you want this new "independent" investigation to be conducted. Others have posted things you've said on other forums about this question, but I'd rather have it from you first hand and fully in context than from hearsay.

1. Under what constitutional authority should the investigation derive the legal powers (such as subpoenaing witnesses and obtaining access to highly classified information) it would need for conducting an effective investigation?

2. Who should lead the investigation?

3. Who should participate in, and provide manpower and technical consultation for, the investigation?

4. If the investigation reveals evidence of crimes, who should have responsibility for charging and prosecuting the accused? Under what court system?

5. If the evidence against an accused person derives from classified sources as it likely would, or is itself classified, how do you guarantee the accused the right to a fair trial without compromising national security?

6. Who should decide the answers to the above questions, under what authority?

Unless you can answer all of these questions, or at least 1, 2, 3, and 6, I put it to you that your calls for an investigation are useless and irrelevant, and would be so even if you were right about your accusations.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
I am currently an airline pilot(real one) for a major southeast airline based in Atlanta. I have over 15,000 hours of total flight time in airliners and I am a former Naval aviator with thousands of hours tactical jet time in the F-18 and A-7 aircraft along with countless other small civilian types.

I like to think that the dearth of real pilot activity over at PFT is a huge indicator to all about whats going on there.

I attempted debate on a few topics there and within 72 hours or so I was banned. Debate is the last thing they want there. JDX is some sort of failed pilot wannabe and at times I almost feel sorry for him......not.

Its a silly place.
 
Not wanting to open the lid of the dumpster that is PfT, whatever happened to their analysis of the AA77 FDR data? They actually did good work to decode it, but from what I saw, it proved them wrong. How did they handle that?

I see that they're now coming out with something about the UAL93 FDR data. I assume they got the data through a similar FOIA request, is that right? I have to assume that they've moved on to 93 because the 77 data was so much against their thesis.
 
I like to think that the dearth of real pilot activity over at PFT is a huge indicator to all about whats going on there.
Click to expand...

At first it actually upset me that pilots created that site. I was an AF nav and totally agree with beachnut that these guys really don't speak for even a small % of flyers out there.

I posted the link and a story on another forum (AF academy "edodo"), and it was treated with general apathy and humor: as in "so what and here's a CT joke".
 
Well, I guess it's not surprising that kooks come in all shapes, sizes and life forms (David Icke may have something).

Anyway, as I said I posted on another board...here's a reply that sort of says it all:

I know these guys. There are 2 or 3 of them, yet they have enormous energy and are ignoring food, family, sex, all normal life functions, to get their gospel message spread.

There are kooks in all walks of life, and in all professions. There was a famous guy at American Airlines who wore a foil-lined baseball hat. For real, not as a gag.

"Those cumulus clouds hide alien ships. The foil prevents them from reading your mind."

I **** you not, he was serious. Funny thing, he apparently was a competent pilot, and in all other facets of his job, aside from the aliens, he was fine. He appeared on more than one talk show like "Donahue", and having a "real, live airline pilot" insist aliens are real, gave credibility to the position.

Good news: He is retired. So you need not worry about him dragging your ass from DFW to SoCal.
Click to expand...
 
Hornit said:
I am currently an airline pilot(real one) for a major southeast airline based in Atlanta. I have over 15,000 hours of total flight time in airliners and I am a former Naval aviator with thousands of hours tactical jet time in the F-18 and A-7 aircraft along with countless other small civilian types.

I like to think that the dearth of real pilot activity over at PFT is a huge indicator to all about whats going on there.

I attempted debate on a few topics there and within 72 hours or so I was banned. Debate is the last thing they want there. JDX is some sort of failed pilot wannabe and at times I almost feel sorry for him......not.

Its a silly place.
Click to expand...

Hornit. I assume you are not a believer in the 9/11 Conspiracy theories. If not, may I add your credentials to our list of JREF posters opposing the 9/11 truth arguments?

TAM:)
 
I've always said "Pilots for Truths" is one of those things, like "Holy Roman Empire" and "English Horn," where not a single word is true. They're not pilots, they're not "for" anything, and they wouldn't know the truth if a flight attendent set a double helping of it down in their laps.

There oughta be a word for things like this.
 
It should be NCPCFF, Nut Case Pilots Who Cannot Find Facts.

DOPES - Doltish Opining Pilots, Extra Stupid
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
It should be NCPCFF, Nut Case Pilots Who Cannot Find Facts.

DOPES - Doltish Opining Pilots, Extra Stupid
Click to expand...


Tell us what you really think Beachnut :D

That danish TV programme was very interesting. There's also a video someone has made using what looks like X-plane in which they recreate the entire flight of AA77 - in real time - and demonstrate just how easy it was. You get to see them dialing in the navigation points, turning the auto pilot on and off, and everything. On their first attempt they arrived at the Pentagon slightly early - they suspect because they had the fuel load slightly off.

What is most interesting is it shows that everything - not just the final moments but the entire flight from hijacking to crash - was fairly straight forward.

-Gumboot
 
To quote a recent letter to Time:

"Those truthers are nutty than squirrel dung."
 
gumboot said:
Tell us what you really think Beachnut :D

That danish TV programme was very interesting. There's also a video someone has made using what looks like X-plane in which they recreate the entire flight of AA77 - in real time - and demonstrate just how easy it was. You get to see them dialing in the navigation points, turning the auto pilot on and off, and everything. On their first attempt they arrived at the Pentagon slightly early - they suspect because they had the fuel load slightly off.

What is most interesting is it shows that everything - not just the final moments but the entire flight from hijacking to crash - was fairly straight forward.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...
SCUMPFTL - Stupid, Crazy, Unbalanced, Moron Pilots for Truth Lies (SCUMPFL)

I wish I could aim for something higher. I have found no redeeming qualities from PFT on 9/11 information. Just junk and lies. Plus the 9/11 flying was too easy, in older jets the terrorist, or rookies may of had problems with control. The PFT found it hard to hit buildings in the simulator. Funny how they prove to be pilots unable to do what the terrorist did, and they say the terrorist could not do it because they can not do it? The inability of PFT to hit buildings in simulators is indicative of their abilities to find facts and make logical conclusions about 9/11. They miss the point.

It was a good video, and the light aircraft pilot easily hit the Pentagon, and so could most people.
 
Stellafane said:
I've always said "Pilots for Truths" is one of those things, like "Holy Roman Empire" and "English Horn," where not a single word is true. They're not pilots, they're not "for" anything, and they wouldn't know the truth if a flight attendent set a double helping of it down in their laps.

There oughta be a word for things like this.
Click to expand...

Oxymorons!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom