Michael Dietrick, "A Professional Pilot's View of the Events of 911."

[demodewd]

http://www.kpfa.org/archives/archives.php?id=13&limit=N

Please listen to the August 25th edition. It will be well worth the time. Or hang me from a tree. :)

[spooked911]

1. Wow! Great piece! LARED-- what do you think?

The talk is mostly about NORAD and FAA procedures and the wargames. My main question is-- could the hijackers have flown the planes?

Finally he does say at the end-- "there's no way, that with the training that the pilots allegedly had" that they could have piloted the planes into the WTC and Pentagon. "No way" they could have done it, he said-- he was quite adamant about it.

FUCK! This makes me incredibly mad that this info is being covered up.*
:mad: :mad: :mad:

*They are not letting pilots speak out. (see post below)

[spooked911]

2. Interesting-- professional pilots' pensions and careers have been

threatened if they discuss 9/11 in public. Specifically, United Airlines has issued a gag order on its pilots about discussing 9/11.

That's pretty damning if you ask me.

[spooked911]

3. The story of United Controller Michael Ballinger is amazing

tried calling his superiors 100 TIMES the first hour on 9/11 and could get no significant response.

Then after his shift was over he was asked to resign!!!!!!!!

And he did and had a nervous breakdown.

Poor guy.

Interesting-- Dietrick can't get ANY air controller to talk to him.

[k-robjoe]

4. On camera

> "Dietrick can't get ANY air controller to talk to him."

Also needs mentioning. He says he´s spoken to nine airline pilots, who agrees with him, but none of them dare speak on camera.
There´s been threats, about loosing pensions etc.

( Ballinger, His first name is Ed. Ed Ballinger. )

[RedSock]

5. shows can be ordered

$15 per cd

http://www.gunsandbutter.net/order_cds.php

[spooked911]

7. Sorry-- Ed Ballinger!

[Frederik]

6. Very interesting, thanks

During the winter of 2003, he interviewed a former Air Force officer (on camera for a future documentary), who had worked in Space Operations in Cheyenne mountain, where NORAD also have a department. According to this officer, all flying objects of any kind are tracked by NORAD, with NORAD's own equipment (satelites etc). NORAD apparently knows where every little piece of space debris is at any time! So, obviously, if this is correct, they would know immediately when the hijacked planes deviated from their course or made any unusual moves and be able to track them. I always found it strange that fighters couldn't intercept the planes because they couldn't find them, anyway. You'd think that with a $450 billion a year budget and after 50 years of Cold War, they would have that capability.

He also claims to have uncovered a June 2001 instruction approved by the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, co-authored by Rumsfeld and an Admiral Fry, in which the following order is found:

"When requested by the administrator of the FAA, the DoD will provide assistance to these law enforcement efforts... the National Military Command Center (in the Pentagon) is the focal point within the Dep. of Defense for providing this assistance. In the event of an aircraft piracy or hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses authorized by (...) forward request for Dep. of Defense assstance to the Secretary of Defense for approval."

This apparently directly contradictas the old standing order from 1997, and places the authority to shoot down or take any other action directly in Rumsfeld's hands.

He also says that it is absolutely impossible that any of the hijackers performed the manoeuvres that Flight 77 performed before hitting the Pentagon.

Interesting that he has been trying for three years to get air traffic controllers to talk about 9/11, but no one has been willing to.

It was well worth time!

[demodewd]

8. complicity

His statements about the surveillance capacity of NORAD certainly implicates complicity in high places in that particular agency.

[Frederik]

9. It certainly is an indication

of complicity. The "incompetence" theory can only go so far.

Also, the two interviews with Webster Tarpley on that site were extremely interesting. Tarpley has studied terrorism since the 70s, in Italy and elsewhere, and he is convinced that "al-Qaeda" is a a CIA/MI6 creation that has been maintained as an instrument of US covert operations in the Muslim world (I agree with him on that).

His take on 9/11 is close to my own, he suspects a group within the "secret government". He believes that Bush, Rice and maybe even Cheney were kept out of the loop (they were told that "Bin Laden is planning to attack", but not much more) and that Bush was blackmailed on 9/11, by people who had the codes needed to launch US nuclear weapons, into blaming the attack on Al-Qaeda and declaring a War on Terror. French, Russian and Israeli intelligence are apparently the sources of the information that the White House received a call by someone who not only warned that Air Force One was a target (which we were all told on 9/11), but who also demonstrated that he had the codes to launch America's nuclear weapons. This would explain why Bush went to Barksdale (secondary nuclear war fighting bunker) and Offutt (primary nuclear war fighting bunker), to be able to personally order the ICBMs to stay in the ground. Bush, in this theory, is more of a puppet than a mastermind, which I think is closer to the truth than some theories that see him as being central in the planning of 9/11.

The clip of Bush in that school on 9/11, to me, shows a man who is slowly, slooowly, putting two and two together and getting shit scared.

The interview with Jim Hoffman about the tower collapses is also very interesting.

[spooked911]

10. Yes, I agree with you. Also you should read Tarpley's book, it is really

interesting. I think he's probably done the best job so far of putting all of 9/11 together.

http://www.waronfreedom.org/index.html#synth

[demodewd]

14. I really believe..

I really believe an effective step forward in the 911 Truth Movement would be to have a number of reputable physicists and mathematicians verify Hoffman's numbers on gravitation potential energy as opposed to those numbers(energy) needed for the speed of dust cloud movement and the degree of pulverization.

[MercutioATC]

11. He's NOT a "professional pilot".

pro·fes·sion·al (prə-fĕsh'ə-nəl)
adj.

Of, relating to, engaged in, or suitable for a profession: lawyers, doctors, and other professional people.
Conforming to the standards of a profession: professional behavior.
Engaging in a given activity as a source of livelihood or as a career: a professional writer.
Performed by persons receiving pay: professional football.
Having or showing great skill; expert: a professional repair job.
n.
A person following a profession, especially a learned profession.
One who earns a living in a given or implied occupation: hired a professional to decorate the house.
A skilled practitioner; an expert.

Except in the most gross definition, this person is simply not a "professional pilot", regardless of what he claims. He's a "professional reporter" who follows, mostly, environmental issues who happens to hold instrument pilot ratings.

I'm an amateur photographer. My pictures have been featured on a few websites. While I have never received monetary compensation for the use of my photos, many similar websites do feature the work of paid professionals. It could therefore be argued that I'm a "professional photographer" because I meet the standards of both 1) b. "Conforming to the standards of a profession: professional behavior" and, arguably, 4) "Having or showing great skill; expert: a professional repair job". The fact remains that I am NOT a "professional photographer" and my comments on photography should be taken as those of an amateur with an extremely limited understanding of the field.

The fact that this "professional pilot" insists that loss of radio communication for "3 minutes or less than 3 minutes" results in ATC initiating emergency procedures and his claim that a deviation of 15 degrees from filed course or (and this was the FIRST time I'd heard this particular ridiculous claim) a mere 50 feet from assigned altitude resulted in a call from ATC demonstrates his limited understanding of "the system".

This man is an amateur pilot with opinions about 9/11. For the media to present him as a "professional pilot" is reprehensible. For him to label himself so brings his integrity into question.

[demodewd]

12. base and petty

He's been flying for nearly twenty years across many different terrains and in many geographically obscure places. I suppose that my 40 plus years of car driving experience accounts for nothing because I am not a "professional" driver.

Your definition would limit "professional" to those who are paid for their services and/or fly commercial planes.

He is far more than a professionaol reporter. You fly the miles and the terrain this man has flown and call yourself an amateur? Bullpoopy.

The fact that this man has flown in the SF area air space hundreds of times qualifies him to give an informed opinion of ATC protocol.

This man has more than opinions about 911. He has provided documentary evidence that the DOD was accountable for the apparent standdown of that day and that at least Donald Rumsfeld and General Eberhardt should stand trial for treason.

Your refuge to dictionary definitions to curb the intellectual and professional abilities of Dietrick are base and petty.

[MercutioATC]

13. No, just accurate.

Regardless of how many times he has flown an airplane, he is not a "professional pilot", he's an experienced amateur.

My real question is why, if he has such a great deal of experience with ATC procedures as they apply to pilots, does he make such obvious misstatements as the "15-degree rule" or the "50-foot rule"? Is he intentionally misrepresenting what really happens when pilots deal with ATC or is he intentionally misrepresenting his experience?