further on Stan Goff (and 9-11 theories)

Xenon Zi-Neng Yuan wenhuadageming at comcast.net
Sat Aug 2 17:41:11 MDT 2003


At 03:43 PM 8/2/2003 -0700, Craven, Jim wrote:
>When 9-11 happened, we had a pleathora of summarily asserted arguments that
>no one who has been trained at the private or commercial pilot level, on
>small aircraft, could, with some simulator time, take over and fly a 757 or
>767--much less a 747--into some building. Not one of those who summarily
>asserted this had any ratings or experience as a pilot that I know of. And
>when actual pilots, with considerable experience as pilots and instructors
>said this simply was not the case, the only response was they know they are
>right no matter what anyone--despite ratings and experience--says; when the
>facts don't fit the theory, fuck the facts. My own daughter, by the way, 9
>1/2 years old, after watching me fly my full-blown simulator only once,
>never having flown it, turned on my 747/Hong Kong program (I have a program
>with actual 747s that once existed with the parameters and even feelings of
>the controls built in and varying by aircraft) taxied the NWA 747 Number 610
>US from the gate to the runway, took the thing off even waiting until 160
>kts before she started rotation and lift off. Then, when she could not find
>the field to land, found an open field in China and put the thing down and
>made it; I know this because I took it off from the field and the simulator
>was fully operational which it would not have been if she had done any
>damage in landing. Indeed those hijackers would not have likely been able to
>do start-up at the gate, copied clearances and actually taken off from their
>respective airports (that is why I do not believe, as some have alleged,
>that they had taken over the aircraft at the gate and the pilots were never
>in control), but taking over in the air and flying to/into a designated
>target was quite possible as any experienced pilot--and especially
>instructor--knows. But you could not convince some of the armchair theorists
>of that even though they would not know the difference between an aileron
>and an elevator.

i agree totally with your assessment of stan and his value to us, but just
for the record, i recalled that he did have some doubts about the "florida
prop-plane and simulator" theory (at least with regards to AA Flight 77 and
the pentagon crash), as originally expressed in his article "The So-Called
Evidence is a Farce", circulated soon after the 9-11
attacks.  http://www.narconews.com/goff1.html   i don't know what he has
come across since then however nor whether or not he has reconsidered his
original skepticism.

regards,
xzy





More information about the Marxism mailing list