Re: [Marxism] Pearl Harbor, etc.

["Carlos A. Rivera" <cerejota@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "bob" <bobo926@xxxxxxxxxxx>

> But here goes,
> why assume that anyone was flying the planes?

It fits the K.I.S.S criteria. And dozens of family members say they were
told by their family members that the planes were hijacked. Now, are they
part of the conspiracy too? It gets to convoluted to be real.

Real conspiracies are simple. J. Edgar Hoover orders a bunch of agents to
keep files on "subvesives". They go and do it. He then orders then to engage
in counter-intelligence and counter-information, they go ahead and do it.
Simple. Clean. Conspirational.

> Trying to explain how 19
> amateurs can fly huge jet airplanes having no prior experience doing so
> and
> then hitting targets perfectly at high speed is difficult.

Not really. To begin with, these people weren't unexperienced. At least half
of them have been shown to have had long histories as pilots.

The standard Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004 doesn't have the 757 but does
have the comparable 737-400 and the disimilar but compatible 747-400 and
777-300. Previous versions also had the 737, I dont know about the other
two. It is so advanced and realistic, many many many pilots oil their wings
in it.

Hell, the US Navy uses it:
https://wwwcfs.cnet.navy.mil/microsimptt/

The physics, flight dynamics, control systems, and unforgiveness of real
flight in MS-FS series has been matched only by real flight since the late
1980s. The graphics have taken sometime to arrive but they are getting
there. In other words, this is not a "game" in the sense that it requires a
mental and physical comitment similar to that of real fligth. It is the poor
man's alternative to learning and practicing instrument flight, the most
challenging part of flying.

http://www.microsoft.com/games/flightsimulator/fs2004_articles_fs_training.asp

Or if you want an independent assesment, the AOPA, Aircraft Owner's and
Pilots Association, which groups over half of the more than 800,000 pilots
in the USA, recommends it as a teaching aid:

http://www.aopa.org/

Now, me being a frustated pilot, and MS-FS having a map with the WTC Towers
in it, the first thing I did was try to replicate the flight pattern of the
planes that hit the WTC Towers. I had never before really flown the
commercial jets in MS-FS (I crashed a lot in take-off, I was too quick on
controls so I stalled, still do most of the time), but had some years of
sporadic light plane use (landings are still my weak point).

Yet, I was able to replicate almost to a letter, including approximate floor
levels, the published flight patters of the WTC Towers. And the Pentagon one
was even easier, because the Pentagon is the tallest building for miles from
the point it was hit, all you had to do was level flight 100-200 feet from
the ground a couple of miles off and then a steep stall (which to boot would
account for the non-descript wreckage - this is characteristic of high-speed
stall crashes).

And you are mistaken about auto-pilot: accesing auto pilot in a modern plane
is as easy as programming your VCR or DVD, a daunting task for some, but not
really hard-hard. The hardest part, which is the coordinates, can be
provided my MS-FS as a handy, auto-pilot ready printout for your kneeboard.
Real amateur pilots use this when pre-flight planning, mind you.

Actually, the flight part of the whole 9-11 stuff should be the least
controversial of it all. Landing and taking off a plane is hard, but
controlling it in flight, in particular putting up a preprogramed flight
path into auto-pilot, is relatively easy. And crashing it into a target as
huge as the WTC towers is a piece of cake after that. Pilots learn similar
manuevers (ie approaching a landing strip) in a week in most flight schools.

So there, you have compelling empirical proof it doesnt take a rocket
surgeon to use a plane as a cruise missile. Of course, just ask any honest
pilot that doesn't want to mystify his field and he will agree.

Now, there might be some value in exploring false flagging (a favored Mossad
method) and "look-the-other-way" Pearl Harborism with regards of the
strategic and tactical surprise achieved in that operation. Its either that
or accept that the USA security apparatus is not the all powerful juggernaut
it made itself to be. As with the fall of the USSR, there is this
disconcerting tendency of commies to give too much credit to the CIA et al.
They are people too, you know?

But like the conspiracy theories around the building's collapse, the whole
"they couldnt have flown them" shows an extreme lack of knowledge as to how
relatively easy to fly modern planes are, how relatively easy it is to train
for them, or worse, shows a racism similar to that of French when faced with
the Haitian revolution, something along the lines of "those towelheaded
sand-niggers couldnt have done that, on account they are too dumb".

I don't buy the official story either, but all the conspiracy theories I see
are barking up the wrong tree. And I am not closed to the possibility that a
somewhat more critical version of the official story is the actual truth.
Certainly there is a possibility that a bunch of amateurs, with
determination and some flight training, including extensive practice,
funding and combined perfect storm style with an arrogant, post-cold war,
thriumphalist security apparatus and an extremely permissive domestic air
travel culture could have resulted in this aspect of the operation having
success.

Actually, having put it into writting, I actually find that explanation much
more compeling than anything the conspiracy theorists put out. 9-11 as The
Perfect Storm makes much more sense than the whole almagam of theories we
are supposed to believe, including some that require the suspending of all
logic and scientific understanding.

sks


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism