9/11 Standard Operating Procedures

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
EagleEye,

the post was an article from an aeronautics engineer and
pilot authorized to fly the "heavies"


How do you know? For all we know, the post was from a dog capable of
operating a keyboard. Also, "argument by authority" doesn't cut it.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Your meds aren't cutting it... dog operating keyboard... Bwahahahah

George Gay was the survivor...
US People--Gay, George H., Jr. Ensign Gay served with
Torpedo Squadron Eight (VT-8) on USS Hornet (CV-8), and was
the only survivor of thirty Hornet torpedo plane pilots and
aircrewmen ...
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/p...rs-g/g-gay.htm
- 9k - Cached - Similar pages


LT George Gay, VT-8 sole survivor of Battle of Midway
Recollections of Lieutenant George Gay, USNR -- sole
survivor of Torpedo Squadron Eight (VT-8) -- describing his
experiences during the Battle of Midway. ...
www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq81-8c.htm - 55k -
Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from www.history.navy.mil ]


"Dogchain" wrote in message
...
|
| "EagleEye" wrote in message
|
oups.com...
| Did you actually READ the article George, and did you
crosspost it over
| to the aviation group? The whole thing, including the
interview?
|
| Now what do you think ?
| Supposing of course that you can.
| You have made the claim that the mad muslims couldn't
possibly have
| flown the 9/11 suicides.
| You are wrong and now you'll be able to explain to
pilots as to how you
| came to 'know' all about flying....
|
| First of all, the post was an article from an
aeronautics engineer and
| pilot authorized to fly the "heavies", and so I myself
was claiming
| nothing, and secondly not only didn't you copy over the
article itself
| so these poor pilots would know just what the hell we
were talking
| about, you intentionally removed from the header all the
newsgroups to
| whom the thread was initially directed and redirected
the thread to the
| two groups rec.aviation.piloting, alt.conspiracy. Now
why would you do
| that? What are you hiding george? Loods like a desperate
measure on
| your part.
|
| George is Gay.
|
|

Thomas Borchert wrote:
EagleEye,

the post was an article from an aeronautics engineer and
pilot authorized to fly the "heavies"


How do you know? For all we know, the post was from a dog capable of
operating a keyboard. Also, "argument by authority" doesn't cut it.

notice how this 'expert' doesn't have the aeronautical alphabet one
would associate with such a position ?????
LAME :-)

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 04:15:57 -0600, Immanuel Goldstein
wrote:

On 02/22/2006 02:25 AM, BDK wrote:
In article .com,
says...

The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training
is the same as flying any aircraft without training.
That's why we do hours in training aircraft, get PPLs and build hours
until we can do CPLs and instrument ratings and so on...
I'm crossposting this to an aviation group so you and your silly
claims can get laughed at over there


Hell, these clowns don't seem to understand just about anyone, and I
mean anyone can fly a plane. It's the takeoffs, navigation, and
especially the landings that are the difficult parts.


Who was flying the planes?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm


http://mckinneysucks.blogspot.com/20...s_archive.html

The authors explain in great detail the anatomy of one of the more
popular internet memes associated with 9/11 -- that many of the
hijackers are still alive:

Take the BBC, for example, which did in fact report, on September
23, 2001, that some of the alleged terrorists were alive and healthy
and had protested their being named as assassins.

But there is one wrinkle. The BBC journalist responsible for the
story only recalls this supposed sensation after having been told the
date on which the story aired. "No, we did not have any videotape or
photographs of the individuals in question at that time," he says, and
tells us that the report was based on articles in Arab newspapers,
such as the Arab News, an English-language Saudi newspaper.

The operator at the call center has the number for the Arab News
on speed dial. We make a call to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. A few seconds
later, Managing Editor John Bradley is on the line. When we tell
Bradley our story, he snorts and says: "That's ridiculous! People here
stopped talking about that a long time ago."

Bradley tells us that at the time his reporters did not speak
directly with the so-called "survivors," but instead combined reports
from other Arab papers. These reports, says Bradley, appeared at a
time when the only public information about the attackers was a list
of names that had been published by the FBI on September 14th. The FBI
did not release photographs until four days after the cited reports,
on September 27th.

The photographs quickly resolved the nonsense about surviving
terrorists. According to Bradley, "all of this is attributable to the
chaos that prevailed during the first few days following the attack.
What we're dealing with are coincidentally identical names." In Saudi
Arabia, says Bradley, the names of two of the allegedly surviving
attackers, Said al-Ghamdi and Walid al-Shari, are "as common as John
Smith in the United States or Great Britain."

The final explanation is provided by the newspaper Asharq
Al-Awsat, one of the sources of Arab News, which in turn serves as a
source to the BBC. Mohammed Samman is the name of the reporter who
interviewed a man named Said al-Ghamdi in Tunis, only to find that
al-Ghamdi was quite horrified to discover his name on the FBI list of
assassins.

Samman remembers his big story well. "That was a wonderful story,"
he says. And that's all it was. It had nothing to do with the version
made up of Br?ckers' and Bülow's combined fantasies.

"The problem," says Samman, "was that after the first FBI list had
been published, CNN released a photo of the pilot Said al-Ghamdi that
had been obtained from the files of those Saudi pilots who had at some
point received official flight training in the United States."

After Samman's story was reported by the news agencies, he was
contacted by CNN. "I gave them Ghamdi's telephone number. The CNN
people talked to the pilot and apologized profusely. The whole thing
was quite obviously a mix-up. The Ghamdi family is one of the largest
families in Saudi Arabia, and there are thousands of men named Said
al-Ghamdi."

When we ask Samman to take another look at the FBI's list of
photographs, he is more than happy to oblige, and tells us: "The
Ghamdi on the photo is not the pilot with whom I spoke."

The investigative journalists should have been able to figure out
just how obvious the solution to this puzzle was. They all write that
a man named Abd al-Asis al-Umari had been named as a perpetrator by
the FBI, and that there are apparently many individuals with this
name. Br?ckers and Hau? even noticed that the FBI had initially
released an incorrect first name to the press. All of this certainly
suggests that there was a mix-up, but it's also something that the
conspiracy theorists apparently did not consider plausible.

In the case of the supposedly surviving terrorist Walid al-Shari,
the truth is even more obvious. At least Bülow had the opportunity to
avoid making this mistake. In his book, he writes that the alleged
assassin Shari "lives in Casablanca and works as a pilot, according to
information provided by the airline Royal Air Maroc."

If Bülow had inquired with the airline, he would have discovered
that the name of the pilot who lives in Casablanca is Walid al-Shri
and not, like that of the assassin, Walid al-Shari. This minor detail
makes a big difference, namely the difference between a dead terrorist
and a living innocent man. But to conspiracy theorists, discovering
the truth is like solving a crossword puzzle for children: What's a
four-letter word for a domesticated animal? Hrse.

The page continues:

While doing research for my conspiracy page last year, I had e-mailed
several different desks at the BBC to inform them that their story was
being used all over the internet as grist for these conspiracy
theories, and asked if they had ever followed up on their apparent
bombshell story. How, I asked, could they just do one story on such an
accusation, and never make an attempt at closure one way or the other.

I never got an answer. I'm afraid that's all too common in journalism
today. Headlines like "Initial Reports Proven Untrue" just don't sell
newspapers, and I guess there just isn't a commensurate sense of
accountability among reporters and their editors to clear up
speculative nonsense for which they were responsible in the first
place.

Later, the Philly Daily News ran an "unanswered questions" piece that
included the same "hijackers still living" canard. I e-mailed the
columnist, Will Bunch, primarily to inform him that one of those
still-living hijackers was recently featured on an al-qaeda recruiting
video -- reading his will, no less. I also asked him why he didn't try
to solve any of these mysteries himself, rather than whining, "So why
did this story line vanish into thin air?" A rather odd question for a
reporter to be asking his readers, I thought.

Bunch's response: "I'm a good reporter, but if I tried to solve all 20
questions myself I'd be 96 years old by the time I was done!" With
this level of laziness among professional journalists, it's no wonder
the conspiracy loons are able to point to so many "inconsistencies"
and "unanswered questions."

On 22 Feb 2006 03:26:31 -0800, "EagleEye"
wrote:

Did you actually READ the article George, and did you crosspost it over
to the aviation group? The whole thing, including the interview?

Now what do you think ?
Supposing of course that you can.
You have made the claim that the mad muslims couldn't possibly have
flown the 9/11 suicides.
You are wrong and now you'll be able to explain to pilots as to how you
came to 'know' all about flying....

First of all, the post was an article from an aeronautics engineer and
pilot authorized to fly the "heavies",

Or so he claims. Yet he believes that it is impossible to fly
"heavies" in VFR conditions without looking at the instruments,
proving that he is a fraud.

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:02:06 -0000, Dylan Smith
wrote:

On 2006-02-22, EagleEye wrote:
First of all, the post was an article from an aeronautics engineer and
pilot authorized to fly the "heavies"

What country is this pilot certificated to fly heavies in? Is he
licensed by the FAA?

Which is a good question. Nila Sagedevan is not currently licensed to
fly ANYTHING in the United States according to the FAA Airmen
database.

Dogchain,

Your meds aren't cutting it... dog operating keyboard... Bwahahahah


Let me humor you: This is a reference to a very old cartoon joke about
the internet. See http://www.unc.edu/depts/jomc/academics/dri/idog.html

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Dogchain,

Your meds aren't cutting it... dog operating keyboard... Bwahahahah


Let me humor you: This is a reference to a very old cartoon joke about
the internet. See http://www.unc.edu/depts/jomc/academics/dri/idog.html


Here's a reference for you. Humor yourself with a butt plug.



--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On 2/23/2006 2:54 PM, Robert M. Gary wrote:
Please do not use rec.aviation.* newsgroups for this. Please use
alt.conspiracy


My original post was named "The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without
Training":
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/browse_thread/thread/a5e931f12a1b2553/a1f6eb8d27e078d5

It appears someone was reviewing my other posting history, and ended up replying
to another post of mine from alt.politics, named " 911-How Bushies TOOK DOWN
WTC7". From there the thread was redirected to rec.aviation.*, and I didn't spot
the switchover.

I sincerely apologize, for not noticing this error, and for not correcting it.


--
Closely Monitored,

Immanuel Goldstein

"It's just a god-damned piece of paper!"
- US President speaking about the U.S. Constitution,
http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp12142005.html

"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act."
- Orwell