Malcolm, now that you have conclusively demonstrated your dishonesty and intellectual laziness, I think this would be a good time to revisit you original claims.
Presumably you meant to write "flew by remote control." This has been conclusively refuted; the
Spiegel article is simply wrong.
Even granting for the sake of argument that this is true, the point is moot due to the refutation of the previous point.
Also moot due to point 1, but even if it were not, carrying passengers aboard a 787 is currently illegal, yet you'll see Boeing make many 787 flights in the next several months.
Here is a link to the Federal Aviation Administration regulations governing the operation of airlines carrying more than 10 passengers per aircraft (
14 CFR Part 121). This version was current as of 1999. Please indicated the section where flight crew members are required to present themselves to passengers by standing at "the" door.
Questionable, but in any case a moot point, as the flights were not remote-controlled.
According to
airport information from airnav.com, Offutt's average air traffic is 168 flights a day, all military. Please provide evidence that there was any civilian use of Offutt's air facilities on or near September 11, 2001.
In what capacity? Did they have maintenance technicians at the base? Maintenance or testing facilities? Please elaborate. Also, Raytheon's presence is moot, again due to point 1.
The only two I could find related to alleged anticompetitive practices in bidding on contracts to launch US Air Force satellites. One was dismissed; Boeing was sanctioned by the Air Force for the other. The RICO statute, though intended to combat organized crime, has some ambiguous provisions that have resulted in its attempted application to some large businesses that no reasonable person would consider to be criminal enterprises, including Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Lockheed Martin, Atlantic Records, Microsoft, and Major League Baseball. Are they all in on the conspiracy, too?
I imagine this is a minor consideration, but I'll grant it for the sake of argument. However, it's a moot point, as will be shown.
Uninformed speculation. Further, what about a base commander "who closed his [or her] airport" during important war games in order to prepare for a possible emergency landing by a stricken civilian airliner? Would that commander face disciplinary action? According to your statement, he or she would.
Cheney was not "in direct command of Norad [sic]" on September 11, 2001, or at any other time. See
here. However, this is also a moot point, as Cheney still could have issued orders to NORAD in his capacity as Vice President.
A compelling reason such as "that's when the plane is supposed to take off?"
Do you have any evidence that these jets actually landed at Offutt, rather than Omaha's Eppley Airfield, which is only 11 miles away, and where Warren Buffett's jet fleet was based? Further, even if this did happen, what evidence do you have that the airport was closed to military flights at any point?
Buffett had hosted the tournament every year for the previous several years. Please provide evidence that he was "persuaded out of retirement," rather than 2001's just being the last year he planned to participate.
Libelous and irrelevant.
True, but irrelevant.
This is at best debatable, but in any case irrelevant.
Again, please provide evidence that any civilian aircraft landed at Offutt on September 11, 2001. But even if true, this is irrelevant.
Air traffic was normal for the date and time of day.
Patently false, and also irrelevant, except insofar as it serves further to illustrate your gross ignorance of aviation.
Yet again, please provide evidence that any civilian aircraft landed at Offutt on September 11, 2001, and also any evidence that the airport was closed to military traffic at any time that day.
