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.

 

Wrong, he stated he flew two of the actual planes supposed to have been used on 9/11. (Listen to the first six words in the clip, hahaha.) Got to be a plus in his corner I would expect. I don’t care about Moore or ‘his opinions’. When I watch a movie directed by an idiot (my thoughts at the time), I myself am not in search of their ‘opinions’ like many seem to be. I called all attention where I could to the news clips and the empirical evidence produced by someone of a ‘better’ caliber and do not remember supporting anything Moore said anywhere or at any time … but to listen to you talk, all he and I do is swap spit being best friends and all hahaha. I myself can shit a bigger list of Moore’s actual inadequacies (not your list) than his plusses … so what. I guess I don’t understand many arguments you guys have perpetuated herein as I think they are for the most part quite petty, insincere and instantly dismissive of any argument??? Do you actually know Moore as well as you profess to because you seem to be much more knowledgeable on the him than I am. So unless you object, I recommend we forget about Moore the person and move on, hahaha to something at least meriting a discussion.

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.

I know, how could anyone be so naïve as to think otherwise hahaha. It could only have been accomplished by a bunch of Muslims moving from cave to cave way across the big water without reliable modern communications ... who else could it have been?  If the world’s only superpower only knew which end of the stick was sharp well … they might have thwarted those rag wearing miscreants and stopped ‘The Master Plan’, hehehe.

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.