NEWSMAKINGNEWS

AUTOMATIC PILOT AND 9.11

10/08/2002 - THE PORTUGAL NEWS

September 11 - An expert’s opinion

A group of military and civilian US pilots, under the chairmanship of Colonel Donn de Grand, after deliberating non-stop for 72 hours, has concluded that the flight crews of the four passenger airliners, involved in the September 11th tragedy, had no control over their aircraft.

In a detailed press communiqué the inquiry stated: “The so-called terrorist attack was in fact a superbly executed military operation carried out against the USA, requiring the utmost professional military skill in command, communications and control. It was flawless in timing, in the choice of selected aircraft to be used as guided missiles and in the coordinated delivery of those missiles to their pre-selected targets.”

The report seriously questions whether or not the suspect hijackers, supposedly trained on Cessna light aircraft, could have located a target dead-on 200 miles from take off point. It further throws into doubt their ability to master the intricacies of the instrument flight rules (IFR) in the 45 minutes from take off to the point of impact. Colonel de Grand said that it would be impossible for novices to have taken control of the four aircraft and orchestrated such a terrible act requiring military precision of the highest order.

A member of the inquiry team, a US Air Force officer who flew over 100 sorties during the Vietnam war, told the press conference: “Those birds (commercial airliners) either had a crack fighter pilot in the left seat, or they were being maneuvered by remote control.”

In evidence given to the enquiry, Captain Kent Hill (retd.) of the US Air Force, and friend of Chic Burlingame, the pilot of the plane that crashed into the Pentagon, stated that the US had on several occasions flown an unmanned aircraft, similar in size to a Boeing 737, across the Pacific from Edwards Air Force base in California to South Australia. According to Hill it had flown on a pre programmed flight path under the control of a pilot in an outside station.

Hill also quoted Bob Ayling, former British Airways boss, in an interview given to the London Economist on September 20th, 2001. Ayling admitted that it was now possible to control an aircraft in flight from either the ground or in the air. This was confirmed by expert witnesses at the inquiry who testified that airliners could be controlled by electro-magnetic pulse or radio frequency instrumentation from command and control platforms based either in the air or at ground level.

All members of the inquiry team agreed that even if guns were held to their heads none of them would fly a plane into a building. Their reaction would be to ditch the plane into a river or a field, thereby safeguarding the lives of those on the ground.

A further question raised by the inquiry was why none of the pilots concerned had alerted ground control. It stated that all pilots are trained to punch a four-digit code into the flight control’s transponder to warn ground control crews of a hijacking - but this did not happen.

During the press conference Captain Hill maintained that the four airliners must have been choreographed by an Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS). This system can engage several aircraft simultaneously by knocking out their on-board flight controls. He said that all the evidence points to the fact that the pilots and their crews had not taken any evasive action to resist the supposed hijackers. They had not attempted any sudden changes in flight path or nose-dive procedures - which led him to believe that they had no control over their aircraft.

THE NEWS, in an attempt to further substantiate the potential veracity of these findings, spoke to an Algarve-based airline pilot, who has more than 20 years of experience in flying passenger planes, to seek his views. Captain Colin McHattie, currently flying with Cathay Pacific, agreed with the independent commission’s findings. However, he explained that while it is possible to fly a plane from the ground, the installation of the necessary equipment is a time-consuming process, and needs extensive planning. THE NEWS will publish a full interview with Captain McHattie in next week’s edition.

The FBI also came in for criticism for the various pieces of contradictory evidence it has published regarding the suspects. Questions are now being asked as to how incorrect information was given out regarding the ID cards of the suspects, and the seat numbers they supposedly occupied after boarding the flights.

None of the suspects named by the FBI appeared on any of the official passenger lists. A further point was how the FBI had managed to retrieve the passport of one of the suspects amid the molten and twisted remains of thousands of tons of steel and rubble brought about by the Twin Towers collapse.

Dr. Paul Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury, and presently Senior Research Fellow at Stamford University, has lent his support to the independent inquiry findings. He also claims that Osama Bin Laden was not responsible for September 11th. The doctor has challenged President Bush to make public the so-called “irrefutable evidence” incriminating Bin Laden.

Colonel Donn de Grand said that if President Bush is lying it would not be the first time that the American people had been mislead by its government. He cited the recently published official government archives describing President Roosevelt’s duplicity in deceiving Americans about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour, which triggered the US entry into WWll.

He also highlighted the role of the country’s government in misleading its citizens in respect of the Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba, and the events that brought about the Spanish American war in the late 19th, century. “Whilst considering who committed this act of war on September 11th,” he said, “albeit Russia, China, an Islamic country or NATO, we must also consider that the enemy may well be within the gates.

“Not for the first time the American public might be being mislead, by those with ulterior motives, into lending its support to a war, this time against Iraq, that has no bearing whatsoever on the interests of the people of the USA.”

So far the mainstream American news media has failed to publish or broadcast any details regarding the independent inquiry. Similarly, the White House, whilst having received a copy of the report, has remained silent on its findings.

http://the-news.net/cgi-bin/story.pl?title=September%2011%20-%20An%20expert’s%20opinion&edition=all
 
http://the-news.net/cgi-bin/story.pl?title=September%2011%20-%20US%20Government%20accused&edition=all
 

AP story Brussels 7 Oct 2001

http://www.masternewmedia.org/issue11/jetsasmissiles.htm

"At Washington's request, NATO will soon deploy surveillance aircraft for anti-terrorist operations in the United States in response to the attacks on New York and Washington, NATO officials said Sunday, an unprecedented use of foreign military forces to defend the U.S. homeland."

The assembled group of pilots debated why we would ask for foreign forces to fly AWACS over our sovereign territory when we have a fleet of 33 of them, of which 28 are stationed in Oklahoma.

The debate also centered on whether such NATO surveillance aircraft were already here prior to 11 September. Could one of them have commandeered the four airliners? There seems to be wide discrepancies between what the Federal government is proclaiming -- and their media moguls reporting -- as opposed to the calm and reasoned and rational views of those men who fly the planes and defend the nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

This writer has been a general aviation pilot since 1946. 1 have flown a variety of single engine prop aircraft since, and installed an FAA-approved airstrip here on my farm in 1980.

Two local pilots periodically joined me for short hops; one, a Madison County lawyer, a graduate of the Air Force Academy, who flew for the Air Force before coming home to practice law. The other, Kent Hill, who lives with his wife, Carol, on a farm close to mine, is an American Airlines captain assigned to the European route. He was a lifelong friend of "Chic" Burlingame. They were graduates of the Naval Academy and flew F-4 Phantoms in Vietnam. Both left the Navy 28 years ago and joined American Airlines. Both planned to retire in 2002.

Chic was the captain of AA flight 77, a Boeing 757, which departed Washington Dulles for Los Angeles at 8:10 am on I I September, with 58 passengers and a crew of 6. Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon at 9:41 am.

"We were totally trained on the old type of hijack," Capt Hill said, "where you treat the hijacker cordially, punch a 4-digit code into your transponder to alert ground control you're being hijacked, and then get him where he wants to go, set the plane safely on the ground and let them deal with it on the ground. However, this is a totally new situation... Not one of the planes alerted ground control that they were being hijacked." How come?

"The fact is, all the transponders were turned off on the doomed flights virtually at the same time." Look at their departure times -- two from Logan (Boston), one from Newark, another from Dulles (Washington DC) -- all between 8 am and 8:15. "Shortly after climb- out to flight level, their transponders are de- activated.. (they are no longer a blip on the radar screens).

This is something that really needs to be looked into. The only reason we turn them off is so they don't interfere with ground systems when we land." (Note: Transponders identify a particular aircraft in flight on the radar screens of FAA flight controllers located throughout the country. Various codes are punched into the transponder, one displaying, "I am being hijacked.")

He is convinced none of the pilots had control of their aircraft when they were flown into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The question then becomes, who was really in control? "Even if I had a gun at my head, I'd never fly a plane into a building. I'd try to put it in anywhere -- a field or a river --and I'd be searing the hell out of them (the hijackers) by flying upside down first," Hill said. In fact, the pilot has the best weapon in his hand when threatened with imminent death by a hijacker, namely, the airplane. Another airline pilot stated. "On hearing a major scuffle in the cabin, the pilot should have inverted the aircraft and the hijackers end up with broken necks."

That none of the four pilots executed such a maneuver points toward the fact that none of them had control of their aircraft, but had been overridden by an outside force, which was flying them by remote control.

As an old and not so bold pilot, I became more convinced that the four commercial jets were choreographed by a "conductor" from a central source, namely an airborne warning and control system (AWACS).

They have the electronic capability to engage several aircraft simultaneously, knock out their on-board flight controls by EMP (electro-magnetic pulsing) and assume command and remote control of these targeted aircraft.
...

(Donn de Grand M, a retired Army colonel, is author of A Window on America, Confessions of an Arms Peddler and his latest, Barbarians Inside the Gates.)
 

In short, many others like me believe that by utilizing this powerful medium to better understand the news, we can somehow contribute to stopping this evil spiral encircling our world today.

I do not, by any means, condone the acts of those who commit crimes. I do not condone either the bureaucratic powers that restrict our civil freedoms, which have often been fought for through centuries of war and deprivation.

Furthermore, I cannot support a political entity that decides what information I legitimately have the right to access. This is where, I believe, the Internet can be a great medium for providing most of us with the liberty to access information.


You can read this article in the original issue of MasterMind.
 

http://www.masternewmedia.org/archive/mastermind11.htm
 

Donn de Grand Pré Oct. 23, 2001

A dedicated group of experienced civilian and military pilots,
including combat fighter pilots and commercial airline
captains, just finished a marathon 72 hours of non-stop
briefings and debate over the current crisis evolving from the
use of commercial aircraft as cruise missiles against the World
Trade Center and the Pentagon on 11 September.

The so-called terrorist attack was in fact a superbly executed
military operation against the United States, requiring the
utmost professional military skill in command, communications
and control. It was flawless in timing, in the choice of
selected aircraft to be used as guided missiles, and in the
coordinated delivery of those missiles to their pre-selected
targets.

As a tactical military exercise against two significant targets
(world financial center and the citadel of world strategic
military planning), the attack, from a psychological impact on
the American public, equaled the Japanese "surprise" attack on
Pearl Harbor 7 Dec 1941.

The over-riding question: If we are at war, who is the enemy?
...

We now have two ongoing and tightly controlled simultaneous
events (emanating from the two symbolic targets of 911:

1) Alan Greenspan, Fed chairman, promising to flood the market
with up to $200 billion in FRNs and to further lower interest
rates, thus bringing about hyperinflation and dollar
devaluation. Much of these multi billions in largesse will be
dumped into the coffers of Wall Street, Defense, bankrupt
airlines, insurance companies and into the willing arms of
debt-ridden third- world countries in the form of debt
repudiation (forgiveness). Call it bribery, in order to get
these often reluctant nations to join our coalition of "freedom
fighters" in "the war against terrorism".

2) Paul Wolfowitz, deputy Defense secretary, promised that the
US will launch "sustained military strikes against those behind
the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington". He said that
the "military retaliation would continue until the roots of
terrorism are destroyed."
...

WHO IS THE ENEMY?
Following is a summary of the near-unanimous views of the
assembled military and civilian pilots concerning certain
critical factors relating to the WTC/Pentagon hit of 9-11:

Troubling questions arose about the alleged pilot-hijackers of
the four aircraft, who were supposedly trained on Cessna
aircraft over the past year at fields in Florida and Oklahoma.

One General officer remarked, "I seriously question whether
these novices could have located a target dead-on 200 miles
removed from takeoff point...-- much less controlled the flight
and mastered the intricacies of 11FR (instrument flight rules)
-- and all accomplished in 45 minutes."

...

Another pilot warned that "we had better consider whether
electro-magnetic pulse or radio frequency weapons were used
from a command and control platform hovering over the Eastern
Seaboard... I'm talkin' AWACS."

Another comment: "If there was an AWACS on station over the
targeted area, did it have a Global Hawk capability? I mean,
could it convert the commercial jets to robotic flying
missiles?

A hotly debated question: Who would be in command of
such an Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS)? Were they
Chinese -- Russians -- Saudis -- Israelis -- NATO? All of these
countries possess AWACS-type aircraft. All (except the Saudis)
have the capability to utilize electro-magnetic pulsing (EMP)
to knock out on-board flight controls and communications of
targeted aircraft, and then, to fly them by remote control.

One of the Air Force officers explained that we had already
flown a robot plane the size of a Boeing 737 across the Pacific
to Australia -- unmanned -- from Edwards AF13 in California to
a successful landing on an Aussie base in South Australia.

It flies along a pre-programmed flight path, but is "monitored"
(controlled remotely) by a pilot from an outside station.  He
explained that the London Economist (20 Sep 2001) published
comments from the former CEO of British Airways, Robert Ayling,
who stated that an aircraft could be commandeered from the
ground or air and controlled remotely in the event of a hijack.

(If you wish me to forward you the full original, unedited text
just request it to me at: )


Independent Flight 77 - Pentagon Event Investigation

Critical Thinking: Emerging Theories

Section - 4

Political and Technical Feasibility It is our latest conclusion that a 'drone' on an automated landing approach is responsible for the Pentagon event. Click.


FLUG REVUE October 1998: Lockheed Martin U-2S in worldwide ...... cameras, and the current development of reconnaissance drones like DarkStar and Global Hawk will not ... At least the automatic pilot has recently been
modernized. ... www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRHeft/FRH9810/FR9810c.htm

PAT SHANNAN'S MUSINGS ... pilot was neutralized a few minutes before the flight, and the automatic pilot ... www.eionews.addr.com/psyops/news/carolvalentine.htm


New questions about remote control and 9-11  http://www.911-strike.com/remote.htm


Message: 3
   Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 17:48:14 -0500
   From: "Linda Minor" <>
Subject: Re: flight 77: extracts from pilots message board

The WTC was owned by the New York Port Authority.

http://www.panynj.gov/pr/142-97.html

http://www.panynj.gov/pr/68-01.html
<<<<<99-Year Net Lease Worth $3.2 Billion; Richest Real Estate Transaction
in New York History>>>>>>
The World Trade Center today became the richest real estate prize in New
York City history as the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey reached
agreement with a major New York City developer and an international shopping
center operator on a long-term lease of the famous Twin Towers and other
properties at the World Trade Center.

Silverstein Properties, Inc., and Westfield America, Inc. have agreed to a
net lease transaction for a term of 99 years, worth an estimated $3.2
billion on a present value basis. The net lease covers four buildings at the
World Trade Center, including the Twin Towers and the retail Mall. The lease
was approved by the Port Authority's Board of Commissioners at their meeting
today.

***

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: ulrich stuart
  To:
  Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 4:11 PM
  Subject: [CIA-DRUGS] flight 77: extracts from pilots message board

  copied from http://www.bosankoe.btinternet.co.uk/remote_control.txt

Forwarded extracts from pilots message board (concerning remote
control on planes)

========

I am a commercial pilot...and there isn't an airline pilot that I
have spoken to who is buying the 9/11 story with the airliners.

Funny, 75% of them said it was as "though someone was remotely
controlling them." Thought you'd find this interesting.

================

http://www.stealthsearch.net/~orbitforum/message.php?page=2&topic=4&message=
676

To pick up the story, most of the buildings built by the Feds like
The Murrah Bldg in Oklahoma, The Whipple Bldg in Minneapolis, The
WTC in NY and others built since 1993 had "Collapse Charges" built
into the main superstructure in case of Emergency Conditions. If an
unknown Enemy attacked and took over, The Feds could destroy bldgs
containing Gov´t Operations, Banking Interests and Ancillary
Functions to keep the Intel and $$$ out of enemy hands. I have seen
some of those precautions myself and KNOW for a fact on others such
as WTC. This explains much about T-1 and T-2 collapses on the day in
question. Smacks of an inside job since only insiders know about
this precaution and how it works. You may post this to your forum or
on your site as you wish.

The WTC was owned and built by an Israeli Construction Co as an
investment for their "Hedged Funds". It was Sold to 5 Arab Sheiks in
mid-august and the closing was held the Friday prior to the event.
The Documents of Sale and Title were to be filed Tuesday (2 day
right of rescission). When the event occurred, the title company/bank
transferred the Sheik's funds to the Israeli Co. at its Tel Aviv
Office ( $2.3 Bil American). That was done at 8:30 AM Tuesday. When
the Insurance Paid off, the funds were paid to the title holder -
The Israeli Co. and not the Sheiks , at their office in Tel Aviv
($2.3 Bil American). The Sheiks protested vigorously but lost. Their
ownership was never filed. $4.6 Billion found its way into the
Israeli Development Fund controlled by the Present Gov´t to be used
for future development and other Gov´t Projects (War Effort???). To
coin a phrase, "All Very Curious".

========================

They don't even need "ace pilots" flying them to their targets even
by remote control! You cant take chances with human error here! You
just punch in the 3 dimensional coordinates where they need to hit -
and the computers takes over and do the rest. The course is then
monitored in real time and adjusted by the computer through
satellite or AWACS. Didn't anybody see the videos from the cameras
mounted on those missiles hitting there targets in Desert Storm with
pinpoint precision as far back as 1990? And those missiles didn't
even need VERY experienced pilots flying them.

========================

INCOMING BRIEF:
The Night of 9/10 - 9/11 began without any fanfare. Tomorrow they
would test the Global-Hawk's capabilities. 4 - 6 commercial jets
would be taken for an unscheduled ride complements of 4 Global-Hawks
(2 from Boston airport and one or two from New York area airports
and 2 from other locations). The take-overs would be un-announced
and the Hawks would play hand-off for an hour and then return
control to the pilots and disappear as quickly as they had
"appeared". No-one was to be injured or be the wiser. The escapade
was approved at the highest level of Gov´t and all was a go at 0600
EST when the operation purportedly commenced. Four Agencies were
involved. The CIA would run the show.

The other 3 were Brookhaven (Who controlled the Hawks), The Air
Force who would monitor the Hawks and their performance without
knowing the game-plan, NORAD who would prevent intruders (They were
also in the dark as to the Mission), and The Executive Community and
selected intelligence personnel who knew the program, had approved
it in generalities and would evaluate the over-all results but not
interfere.

The 4 Hawks launched and took up positions, at least 4 aircraft were
acquired and all went well. The 2 NY birds were handed off and flown
to a Base, drained of passengers and crew and relaunched as were the
2 Boston birds (Probably the same base). The claim was a National
Emergency and it worked. The Hawks killed the transponders remotely
landed the 4 craft without incident. All 4 birds again took off and
it was then that The Controllers Took Over. Bird # 1 was the second
bird to strike (The Corner Shot). Birds 2 and 4 flew cover and
ditched in H2O. Bird 3 went down in Penn. Number 1 strike was a
business Jet loaded with incendiary devices and jet-fuel as was the
object that hit the 5 sided affair. Sources say the original
occupants of the birds were neutralized but no explanation was given
as to how and we have no idea at this time.

There were no hijackers and neither the Executives, nor NORAD nor
The AF, and possibly not even The CIA knew the Real Whole Scenario.
Only the controllers of The Hawks had the whole Program and dollars
were involved. A Supposed Middle East "Old Friend" agreed to fund
The Hawk Project and the controllers and the transfers were done
that AM. The records were lost when the tower computers were
neutralized permanently.

The CIA handled the cover-up. The money was part of a transfer of
$20-$30 Trillion done that AM. The $5-$6 Mill for the operation was
done on 9/12 - 9/15 through other channels. The intelligence
community and the controllers maintained that Things just went wrong
and they were unavoidable errors. At that point, the cover-up kicked
in. The rest is History. I am being understandably vague to cover my
sources, your readers may judge for themselves the accuracy and/or
plausibility of this scenario. It is how it looks from this vantage
point - right or wrong.

I hope the Congress catches the offenders as I Grieve for what NY
City lost in Firemen and Police as well as all those lost in the
event. Publish what and if you wish, this my slant after a lot of
research and inquiry.

=================

....about the possibility of the 9/11 aircraft being flown remotely.
When I was in the Navy I worked on a system called ACLS which is
Automated Carrier Landing System. The system will actually land an
aircraft on a carrier with no intervention by the pilot. This is not
new technology either, it was developed in the 50's and I can say
from personal experience that it is not a complicated system.

I found this article today
http://www.flagshipnews.com/archives/june072001_6.shtml
(currently having server problems, reference their homepage
http://www.flagshipnews.com/)
that explains a new system that will replace ACLS with a GPS guided
version. It would seem entirely possible that this could be used on
a commercial aircraft right now, today.

====================

September 11 cover-up crumbles: Who was covering for Moussaoui, and
why?
By Patrick Martin
29 May 2002

The revelations over the past two weeks about advance warnings of
the September 11 terrorist attacks have focused particularly on the
role of Zaccarias Moussaoui, the Islamic fundamentalist arrested
last August in Minneapolis. Moussaoui is the only person facing
criminal charges for allegedly playing a role in the attacks that
destroyed the World Trade Center and killed more than 3,000 people.

Fragments of a May 22 letter from Colleen Rowley, an official in the
Minneapolis FBI office, to FBI Director Robert Mueller were reported
in the press last week. Virtually the entire text of the letter is
published in the current issue of Time magazine and posted on its
web site, www.time.com. The letter documents not merely incompetence
and bureaucratic indifference, but active opposition to an
investigation of Moussaoui, sabotage so obvious that it led
Minneapolis FBI personnel to joke that agents of Osama bin Laden
must have penetrated the J. Edgar Hoover building.

Ever since September 11 the Bush administration has steadfastly
maintained its opposition to any investigation into the
circumstances leading up to the suicide hijackings, while offering
shifting and contradictory explanations of how it was possible for
terrorists to seize control of four commercial airliners
simultaneously and hit the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

At first the White House, FBI and CIA claimed that the attacks came
as a bolt from the blue, taking the US government totally by
surprise, despite its vast intelligence apparatus employing hundreds
of thousands of personnel. Anyone who questioned this claim,
especially in view of the longstanding ties between the US
intelligence services and Osama bin Laden, the alleged inspirer of
the attacks, was branded a "conspiracy theorist."

The administration launched its long-planned war against
Afghanistan, bombing and then invading that impoverished country,
killing thousands of people-from Taliban rank-and-file soldiers to
civilians in peasant villages and urban centers-who had no
demonstrable connection to the destruction of the World Trade
Center.

In the name of the "war on terrorism," the administration drafted
and pushed through Congress legislation that vastly expanded the
powers of the government to spy on, arrest and imprison both
American citizens and immigrants. These new powers were needed,
according to Attorney General Ashcroft and other Bush spokesmen, to
prevent a repetition of the "surprise attack" of September 11.

One lie replaces another

Then came the revelation this month that September 11 was not such a
surprise. Press reports compelled the White House to admit that Bush
had been briefed on August 6, 2001 -more than a month before the
attacks on New York and Washington-about Al Qaeda threats to hijack
US commercial airliners.

The official story changed abruptly. Instead of no advance warning,
White House and FBI spokesmen now claimed there had been too many
warnings. The evidence had been plentiful, but so fragmentary that
no one was able to put it together in time to forestall the
hijackings.

With undisguised contempt for public opinion, the White House
offered a new cover story that directly contradicted the old one
that the White House had maintained for eight months. The new
version, however, failed to explain why Bush & Co. had concealed the
August 6 briefing and other evidence of advance warnings for months
on end.

The American media dutifully swallowed the new set of lies without
protest. Press accounts were filled with references to the failure
to "connect the dots," as though elaborate mental gymnastics were
required to see the relationship between a warning of Islamic
fundamentalist activity at US pilot-training schools (from the
Arizona FBI) and the arrest (by the Minneapolis FBI) of Moussaoui,
an Islamic fundamentalist who paid cash to be trained to fly a
Boeing 747 while he could not even pilot a small plane.

This new cover story lasted barely a week before it was exploded by
Rowley's 13-page letter to Mueller and the Senate Intelligence
Committee. Among other things, Rowley revealed that the local FBI
reports from Arizona and Minneapolis had ended up on the desk of the
same official at FBI headquarters, David Frasca, head of the Radical
Fundamentalists Unit. Even on the morning of September 11, as the
Minneapolis FBI agents were watching television coverage of the
suicide attacks on the Twin Towers, Frasca called Rowley to tell her
not to proceed with an investigation of Moussaoui because
Minneapolis might "screw up" something else going on elsewhere in
the country.

Nor were these the isolated actions of a single misguided official.
Rowley points out, "Despite FBI leaders' full knowledge of all the
items mentioned herein ... the SSA [supervisory special agent], his
unit chief, and other involved HQ personnel were allowed to stay in
their positions and, what's worse, occupy critical positions in the
FBI's SIOC Command Center post-September 11th. (The SSA in question
actually received a promotion some months afterward!)"

Rowley's letter confirms that there was extensive discussion within
the government on the danger of hijackings by Islamic
fundamentalists, although the public was not informed. Repeated
efforts to investigate were being thwarted. Top-level FBI officials
were protecting Moussaoui and his confederates, running interference
for him when his own reckless and impulsive conduct brought him to
the attention of the authorities. The question is, why?

The CIA and Islamic fundamentalism

There are two possible explanations. The first is that Moussaoui and
others were being protected because they were engaged in operations
that had the support of the US government-in Chechnya or other
territories of the former Soviet Union, in Bosnia, or elsewhere.
Moussaoui himself was active in recruiting Islamic fundamentalists
to fight in Chechnya against the Russian army.

CIA Director William Casey initiated the recruitment of Islamic
fundamentalists from around the world to go to Afghanistan in the
1980s to fight in the decade-long guerrilla war against the Soviet
military intervention. They received training in terrorist tactics,
including the planting of bombs, from US intelligence agents. This
was the milieu out of which Osama bin Laden-himself a collaborator
with the CIA in Afghanistan -recruited the initial forces for his Al
Qaeda organization.

After the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, many of these
fighters, most of them Arabs, were allowed entry into the United
States as a reward for their services in the war. In the aftermath
of the Persian Gulf War, some of these Islamic fundamentalists
turned against the US government, bombing the World Trade Center in
1993 and carrying out other attacks on US targets overseas. The
phenomenon of former CIA-backed guerrillas using their US training
to attack American targets became known as "blowback."

Many Islamic fundamentalists continued to make common cause with
American imperialism, particularly in Bosnia, Chechnya, and other
brutal guerrilla wars on the periphery of the former Soviet bloc.
The US intelligence apparatus worked closely with these forces,
particularly in Bosnia, Kosovo and Albania, but also in Chechnya and
the former Soviet republics of Central Asia. US administrations
regularly denounced the Russian military intervention in Chechnya-a
position taken by George W. Bush as a candidate, which he abandoned
only after September 11 in pursuit of Russian support for the US
intervention in Central Asia.

It is thus quite possible that top US intelligence officials were
aware of Moussaoui's role as a recruiter for the Islamic
fundamentalist forces fighting Russian troops in Chechnya and sought
to protect him from the attentions of lower-level FBI agents.

There is a second possibility, which largely coincides with the
first, but with the sinister addition that the alliance of the CIA
with Islamic fundamentalist terrorists may have included actions
within the United States itself. In other words, the US intelligence
apparatus was aware at some level of the unfolding plans for
terrorist strikes against US targets, and let them proceed in order
to provide a suitable pretext for the military action that the Bush
administration and the Pentagon were planning to undertake in
Central Asia.

See Also:
New evidence that US government suppressed
September 11 warnings [27 May 2002]

Government by provocation: Bush administration
escalates terror warnings
[24 May 2002]

Why is the New York Times defending Bush's
September 11 cover-up?
[22 May 2002]

Cover-up and conspiracy: The Bush administration and September 11
[18 May 2002]

More evidence of warnings to Washington of September 11 attacks
[8 May 2002]

Was the US government alerted to September 11 attack?
[16 January 2002]

=============

Comment Remote Control Software From Larry W 1-1-02

Jeff,

Everyone talks about the schooling the hijackers got to fly those
planes, but no one ever addresses a simple fact. None of them had
ever flown one of those planes before, and yet three of four were
direct hits, the fourth being an aborted mission.

I remember the when I was 16, the first time I was certain I was
going to get laid. I was driving my dad's sedan, a 60 Chevy, which I
had driven many times before, and I almost wrecked it half a dozen
times just headed to the lake. Think of these young men, not much
older than I was in that 60 Chevy, flying these mammoth planes,
believing they were on their way to meet Allah.

The adrenaline would be pumping, they would be shaking. They were
flying at heights they had never experienced and several times the
speed they had ever flown. They were flying over unfamiliar
territory, yet three of those plane flew directly to their targets
without any problems and at an enormous rate of speed they made the
final adjustments (view the final bank the plane that hit the second
tower made as it sailed into the target) to score direct, dead-
center hits on their targets. I don't think so.

I would guess that, much like a cruise missile, those planes were
managed by remote control software operated by a VERY experienced
pilot safe and secure in a command center somewhere. I think that
fact would be born out by the information on the CVR not being
released by the Feds. It probably would reflect conversation
indicating that control of the plane had been taken from the pilots
and the hijackers, and they could not regain that control.

Since the passengers on that craft attempted to apprehend the
hijackers by storming the cockpit, they probably became aware of
that fact, too, and since they had already been in contact with
relatives via cell phone, it is probably why that flight was crashed
as unceremoniously as it was.

How's that for a conspiracy theory?

Larry in Overland Park

=======

Comment >From Vince Bradley -2-1


Jeff, Ever since I "stumbled" onto this site, (Praise Allah or
someone for blessing me). I've never stopped coming back...this is
truly the best and "makes much more friggin sense than CNN"
information around! I've been following this whole WTC/Afghanistan
brouhaha since obviously 911 and it's a shame that it takes "well-
oiled, media-whore" (skolnick-style) conspiracies to actually get me
interested in foreign policy. I'm rambling here, but in regards to
the "Global Hawk theory": no theory...Global Hawk FACT.

When I first read "Operation 911 - No suicidal hijackers" by Carol
Valentine, I instantly went "Oh, my God why didn't I even consider
that!!" I'm a computer science graduate from the Old school
(somewhere between Atari and Pentium I's) and I remembered
discussing in my artificial intelligence classes. the
microprocessors and the programming language used for these UAV's of
the future (as this was mid 1980's..).

One thing that wasn't mentioned in this article was the fact that
after the 3rd plane hit the Pentagon, all planes in the air over 145
seats were automatically grounded and guess what? Those are all
767's!! Not only that, a college friend of mine who doesn't think I'm
a kook and actually believes this global hawk thing works for
Lockheed. This guy said that the last Mars landing the US made was a
"bet" made between JPL and Lockheed Martin that they (JPL) could
actually get the gov't to fund a mission to send a kid's remote
controlled car toy (like the ones by TYCO..) to mars.. and guess who
won the bet???

He's done some tenure as an air traffic controller and noted that he
read that flight 93 while on route made a U-TURN somewhere between
Kansas and Ohio and headed back (verifiable on the net) AT THE SAME
TIME some 300 planes are scrambling changing their routes to find
alternative landing because they were grounded "effective
immediately." I would think that with a plane changing course that
drastically (especially when pullin' a U-Turn in the middle of the
"air-street").

It's quite amazing (Ripley's Believe it or not amazing) that this
plane didn't collide with another plane or come close to colliding
with others in the near vicinity as I'm sure there were quite a few
of them out there and the "suicidal hijacker pilots" actually sucked
as pilots..(again verifiable..). He's shown me before what the radar
screens look like when the sky is full ..talk about needing nerves
of steel!!

Keep up the good work Jeff!!!! Its good to know that there are
others out there that like me, "Aint buyin it." Believe me, I feel
just as everyone else does on this website about this "slimy ordeal"
and I've managed to infuriate quite a few family members in the
process (especially the ones who fought in Nam and WWII who call me
a fascist..) Speaking of which, Loved the story "Right-winged kook
Thanksgiving" as I was "banished" from Thanksgiving dinner with my
utter nonsense and crazy talk. It's amazing how quickly people step
aside when you have a opposite opinion about "gub'ment issues" I
agree on the Independent Committee to investigate this and 100 other
things..but my question is how come with all that is being written
especially on the net these days, We cannot demand and enforce
answers??? I mean I'm still learning (un-learning that is..)
government fundamentals but with checks and balances, who da hell
"polices the police" ???(gover

Take care Jeff and keep telling the truth or at least giving us the
URL's to it!!!

Vince Bradley

Comment From Moment Of Truth 1-2-2


Hello, Jeff...Is there anybody out there? I feel so lonely here!!
GLOBAL HAWK technology is REAL people! it has been around for a long
time and it isn't even that sophisticated compared to some other
stuff the military has been hiding. I am no rocket scientist here,
so correct me if I am wrong please! But don't cruise missiles fly
using the same aerodynamic, avionics and guidance concepts and
principles as planes?!

And guess what? They don't even need "ace pilots" flying them to
their targets even by remote control! You cant take chances with
human error here! You just punch in the 3 dimensional coordinates
where they need to hit - and the computers takes over and do the
rest. The course is then monitored in real time and adjusted by the
computer through satellite or AWACS. Didn't anybody see the videos
from the cameras mounted on those missiles hitting there targets in
Desert Storm with pinpoint precision as far back as 1990? And those
missiles didn't even need VERY experienced pilots flying them.

Comment From Jack Handy 1-2-2

I just wanted to throw in my $0.02 worth about the possibility of
the 9/11 aircraft being flown remotely. When I was in the Navy I
worked on a system called ACLS which is Automated Carrier Landing
System. The system will actually land an aircraft on a carrier with
no intervention by the pilot. This is not new technology either, it
was developed in the 50's and I can say from personal experience
that it is not a complicated system.

I found this article today
http://www.flagshipnews.com/archives/june072001_6.shtml that
explains a new system that will replace ACLS with a GPS guided
version. It would seem entirely possible that this could be used on
a commercial aircraft right now, today.

Comment From Ken 1-2-2

I ran across a site that has a petition to the US Senate asking for
an inquiry into the events of 911.

Here is the link
http://www.petitiononline.com/11601TFS/petition.html

Keep up the good work.
Ken

Comment From Scott T. Nixon 1-3-1

I have long been suspicious of some of the government's explanations regarding many reported "calamities," and your article helped to clear the air on a few things regarding the September 11 tragedies.

However, I wouldn't assign any of the blame for the planning of the
terrorist activities to the U.S. government -- only for the cover-up
which was to follow. But in order to assign blame, there has to be a
motive. And to try and determine motive, one has to ask the
question: Who has already gained the most because of what has
happened, or who stands to gain the most in the future?

Surely, the Bush administration has the most to gain or lose from
the crisis management in the post-terrorism aftermath. If they're
perceived to be doing a good job of responding to September 11, then
they have a better chance of solidifying their congressional hold in
next year's off-year election, and of re-taking the White House in
2004. On the other hand, though, perceived failure of the Bush White
House to respond to this crisis appropriately, and they have
everything to lose. So, obviously George W. Bush is more than just a
bystander sitting back and watching the investigation take place.
He's got a personal stake in it probably more than any other
American besides the victims of the tragedy itself as well as the
soldiers deployed overseas to engage in the battle.

But who would've planned such an elaborate scheme, and for what
purposes? To make a long e-mail just a bit shorter, I'll cut right
to the chase and avoid all of the other potential "suspects." I
think the Saudi Arabia government -- or else some very wealthy and
influential Saudi members of society who might not necessarily be
directly involved in the government -- were the ones who appear to
have had the most motive. Remember that many Saudis consider the
United States to be an occupying force of their country for more
than ten years now, ever since the Persian Gulf War ended. Although
publicly they express glee over the U.S.'s rout of Iraqi dictator
Saddam Hussein's army in 1991, privately they hold much disgust and
anger over what they see as "creeping Western influences" being
brought into their country by a permanent military presence there.
And remember their abrupt refusal of the FBI's request in 1997 to be
allowed to participate in the investigation into the bombing of the
Khobar Towers.

But could Saudi Arabian individuals merely by themselves pull off
such a technical feat? Highly unlikely, but they sure could have
bankrolled the undertaking. And our government, fearful of the
public recriminations which might follow the denunciation of a long-
time oil supplier in the region, as well as the economic effect of
another embargo, would have a strong motive to try and make it look
like just a two-bit al-Qaeda operation if they felt that they could
retaliate against the Saudi government in a more private manner.

So why, then, would Saudi Arabia want to publicly commit such a
horrific act and then try and attribute blame to some other, unknown
entity? Well, recall the Saudi's war against Saddam Hussein ten
years ago. It could be very possible that the original Saudi
intention was not to try and pin blame on Osama bin Laden, but on
Saddam Hussein, their longtime foe. The war against Iraq ten years
ago gave the Saudis a convenient pretext to clamp down harshly on
human rights within their country against political dissidents. And
another war against the Iraqi menace now would give them yet another
pretext this time, too. Kuwait would be more than thrilled as well.
But the Saudis would have had to have waited until after the 2000
elections to try and accomplish such a horrific act so as not to
give Bill Clinton the opportunity to shine as the commander in chief
in response, thus ensuring Gore's election last November.

Besides, the two previous attempts to try and lay blame at Hussein's
feet -- the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, as well as the 1995
Oklahoma City Murrah Federal Building bombing -- both resulted in
the Clinton administration swiftly identifying, prosecuting, and
convicting the perpetrators of those acts without so much as a
single Patriot missile being launched Saddam Hussein's way. Yet one
more reason why from then on terrorism against American targets went
overseas, i.e., the 1997 Khobar Towers bombing in Dahrain, Saudi
Arabia, as well as the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and
Tanzania and the U.S.S. Cole. As long as the Clinton administration
was in office, they reasoned, then all attempted terrorist strikes
against U.S. targets would have to be made on foreign soil.

Then came November 2000 and George W. Bush's election to the White
House. Now, the Saudis believed, they at long last had a friend and
an ideological soul mate who, even if he wouldn't for a moment be
willingly complicit in such a terrible horror, might nevertheless
play just enough of a village idiot so as to shift the blame and
thrust of the investigation onto Iraq. However, things rarely go
exactly according to plan, and in an investigation as large and
complex as this one was, surely there would be someone who would
find out information enabling investigators to, appropriately, affix
blame on Osama bin Laden and his Saudi network of well-connected
terrorists using Afghanistan as their terrorist training facility
and playground, rather than on Iraq. Even the sophisticated effort
to attribute the anthrax-laced letters to Saddam Hussein were
eventually found out, and have since been traced to an Army lab in
Provo, Utah of all places.

As to the alleged GPS technology, I floated that theory around for
at least as far back as Commerce Secretary Ron Brown's plane mishap
in 1996, possibly by rebellious anti-Clinton military types who were
angry at the Clinton administration's supposed "weakening" of our
military and who were emboldened by the Republican takeover of
Congress just a year earlier and an expected GOP win in November, as
well as by Yitzak Rabin's assassination in November 1995 which
effectively ended all hopes for a lasting peace in the Middle East
(peace being about the worst-case scenario imagined by the military
industrial complex, save all-out nuclear war). Moreover, I suspect
that similar GPS technology could have been used to down JFK, Jr.'s
plane off the coast of Massachusetts, as a dampening prelude to the
Democrats' morale which they would need if they were to win the
White House in 2000 (not to mention knocking off a potential
Democratic candidate who might some day down the road make his own
White House bid).

But not everyone in the government could have been in on terrorism
of such a magnitude, or even a sizable number. It would have had to
have been a very small number, if any at all within the official
government (but working off the payroll out of former CIA director
William Casey's OSS London offices is another matter -- he of the
infamous Iran-Contra scandal who conveniently got a brain tumor just
two days before he was scheduled to testify before the Congress).
This would explain the fourth airplane crash theory. If the fourth
plane was indeed shot down by the U.S. military in order to prevent
it from striking yet another target, our own government would never,
ever, want to admit to such a thing in public. Nor, for that matter,
would they ever want to release the cockpit voice recorder. Rather,
to try and avoid giving the terrorists and their sympathizers and
bankrollers around the world any peace of mind, simply portray the
passengers aboard the aircraft as "heroes" who stormed the
terrorists and foiled their plot in midair. This will puzzle the
elaborate schemers of such an act, who never for one moment would
think that any one of their loyal and programmed foot soldiers would
be so incapable as to not be able to carry out their terrorism
without being stopped by "self-absorbed" Americans, of all people.

To sum up, I will only say that I don't believe for one moment that
the Bush administration, or anyone in it, would have conspired to
commit such an evil act of horror on their fellow Americans. But
someone sympathetic to the administration, even a foreigner
sympathetic to the Bush administration, may have had as strong a
motive as any. And no matter how uninvolved George W. Bush himself
may be, I don't believe that we should ever -- ever -- reward
terrorists for their acts. I, for one, won't be voting for his
reelection in 2004.

Comment From Richard 1-3-2

I am a commercial pilot...and there isn't an airline pilot that I
have spoken to who is buying the 9/11 story with the airliners.

Funny, 75% of them said it was as "though someone was remotely
controlling them." Thought you'd find this interesting.

Also, a lot of spraying going on via chemtrails as well...

you heard it from the horse's mouth....

Comment From Mark Tichenor 1-3-1

On your comments page someone did suggest that cruise missile
technology could have been used to guide the "hijacked" planes. I
had that idea, too and it is very SIMPLE. Since all the planes were
the same class, it makes it even simpler.

You just need someone on Boeing's design team to insure that the
planes are equipped with a maintenance computer jack with the right
control signal lines embedded. Then a pre-programmed "cruise
missile" control logic box (probably now implemented in a Palm Pilot
sized box) can simply be plugged in to the maintenance port on the
airplane anytime before T-DAY. The device could be activated by a
radio signal or a cell phone which would take the pilot's controls
off-line and take over flying the plane using data from the plane's
own GPS positioning system to control its approach to the programmed
target.

Keep up the good work!
Mark

Comment On The Comments Of Mr. David Foster From One Highly-Concerned American 1-4-2


'9-11 Planes Not Flown Remotely'
By David Foster
Former Aviation Consultant (?)


David Foster:

"Myth: Dark Forces planted Global Hawk Remote Piloting equipment in
all four aircraft and seized control shortly after takeoff."

"Reality: Had this happened, the flight crew would have radioed an
emergency to Air Traffic Control."

MY COMMENT If Dark Forces can install remote control, can they not
also take care of all other issues, such as "undesirable" radio
alerts to the ground???

David Foster's thoughts about what a pilot "could" do if their
aircraft was remotely taken over:

"4. Pilot thinks he has a runaway flight control system. He kills
flight computer number 1 and goes with 2. If that fails he re-
initializes the system and the bird flies in dumb mode for a short
while. If that fails he re-initializes again and dumps all flight
course data and reverts to dumb mode and manually enters way points.
If that fails he kills primary and goes to dumb mode for rest of
flight (Boeing learned from the Airbus incident. The 757/767 glass
cockpit allows the pilot to have the final say) 5. If all else
fails, pilot will kill the system, drop the air motor (a little
emergency generator that drops into the slip stream and generates
power with a small propeller and land ASAP with only partial
hydraulic boost and a turn and bank. (Thank you Air Canada). 6. All
4 aircraft, assuming they were not hijacked, had sufficient time to
do the above."

MY COMMENT Referring to my first comment, little or NOTHING could be
done if the reconstructed systems override all pilot input. It's all
chip and software "fly by wire" and "ohhh, so easy" to mess with.

David Foster: "7. There are recordings from Flight 175 of the
hijacker speaking. [Seems evident]* the PIC (Pilot in Command) held
down the push to talk on the yoke so somebody would know he was
being hijacked. It also means he wasn't being allowed to use the
radio. The hijacker was even recorded saying NO ONE WOULD BE HURT.
So the PILOTS FOLLOWED POLICY and did not resist." *My note: If it
"seems" to be, it is??

MY COMMENT The PIC (PILOT IN COMMAND) was the remote "joy stick"
pilot and the "HIJACKER" an actor/dark force stand in. Or, do you
(the readers) also believe the "smoking gun" video is real??!!

David Foster: "Myth: These poorly trained hijackers could not have
flown such complicated aircraft in such a precise manner."

"Reality 1: Talk to any pilot, they flew not so precisely.

Reality 2. Flying is easy, any 16 year old can do it,and taking off
is hard.

Reality 3: 16 year old Japanese kids with 2 hours training through
fighter cover and flak and hit smaller targets like Aircraft
Carriers and Destroyer Escorts."

MY COMMENT Remote control bypasses on board pilots, thus no issue!!
But,,, since it has been raised, and since there are people who
still believe passports can fly through blood, jet fuel, glass and
steel then fire that "melts" steel and then travel several NY city
blocks through buildings thus being: "miraculously" found; submitted
to police and winding up on CNN...

...I'll give it a shot:

=======

Comment 9-11 Planes Not Flown Remotely

By David Foster
Former Aviation Consultant
1-4-1

While many are looking for conspiratorial aspects of the events of
9-11, one thing is relatively certain, Global Hawk Remote Piloting
Technology played no role in the events. Many have written that
there is over- whelming evidence that the flight controls of all 4
aircraft were seized by remote control.

Most of these writers are working with only partial information and
fail to dig deeper, and are very obviously unfamiliar with how
aircraft, cockpits and the Air Traffic system work.

Lets look at some myths versus reality.

Myth: Dark Forces planted Global Hawk Remote Piloting equipment in
all four aircraft and seized control shortly after takeoff.

Reality: Had this happened, the flight crew would have immediately
radioed an emergency to Air Traffic Control.

Myth: The Federal Government is hiding tapes of just such
conversations.

Reality: How do these dark forces keep hundreds of air traffic
controllers silent?

Reality 2: The flight crews would have also radio their companies on
their respective company frequency to request technical help on
regaining control of their aircraft.

Reality 3: There were recorded transmissions from all 4 aircraft, so
the alleged Global Hawk did not shut off the radio's.

Myth: These poorly trained hijackers could not have flown such
complicated aircraft in such a precise manner.

Reality 1: Talk to any pilot, they flew not so precisely.

Reality 2. Flying is easy, any 16 year old can do it, landing and
taking off is hard.

Reality 3: 16 year old Japanese kids with 2 hours training flew
through fighter cover and flak and hit smaller targets like Aircraft
Carriers and Destroyer Escorts.

Myth: The hijackers were poorly armed, and could have been
overpowered.

Reality: It was policy before 9-11 for all flight crew to do exactly
what a hijacker tells them regardless of whether a weapon is
visible, implied, on not evident at all. "Flight attendant Michelle
Heidenberger was on board Flight 77. She had been "trained to handle
a hijacking." Exactly - her training was to cooperate in every way.
The goal of the training is to do as asked, get the plane on the
ground and let the authorities sort it out. No one dreamed that
hijackers would use the plane as a weapon of mass destruction
because it had never been done before.

Myth: The Washington Post, September 12, says this: "Aviation
sources said that the plane was flown with extraordinary skill,
making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm,
possibly one of the hijackers. Someone even knew how to turn off the
transponder, a move that is considerably less than obvious."

According to the article, the air traffic controllers "had time to
warn the White House that the jet was aimed directly at the
president's mansion and was traveling at a gut-wrenching speed -
full throttle.

"But just as the plane seemed to be on a suicide mission into the
White House, the unidentified pilot executed a pivot so tight that
it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver.

Reality 1: The first thing you learn in flight school is how to turn
on and OFF the transponder. It is in fact a simple and obviously
placed device. You don't even have to turn it off, you can just set
it to 1200, the code for VFR uncontrolled traffic.

Reality 2: Whoever the Washington Post's Aviation sources are, they
have never flown. The pilot of the plane that hit the Pentagon, made
a sloppy turn, came in too low and actually hit the ground before
momentum carried the jet into the building. In fact the building
suffered far less damage as a result of his poor flying.

Myth: "Hanjour had 600 hours listed in his log book, Bernard said,
and instructors were surprised he was not able to fly better with
the amount of experience.....Yet this is the man the FBI would have
us believe flew Flight 77 into the Pentagon "with extraordinary
skill." BUT HE COULD NOT EVEN FLY A CESSNA 172 !!

Reality: Once airborne it is much more difficult to keep a 172
straight and level than a Boeing 757/767. 172 bounce with mild
turbulence and drift with the wind. A 400 knot 757 is very stable.

Myth: The instructor said neither man was able to pass a Stage I
rating test to track and intercept. After offering some harsh words,
the instructor said, the two moved on ....

Reality: Once again the writer proves their lack of knowledge of
aviation. A track and intercept refers to tracking (following) an
invisible VOR radio beam and intercepting an invisible point in
space where two VOR signals intersect. This is strictly an
instrument condition without the benefit outside visual references.
Its very easy to hit a big building you can see and AIM at.

Myth: "Why would the take-off time and the passenger list be held
secret? The passengers, crew, and culprits were all dead. The
relatives must have known that when they heard the news of the
crashes."

Reality: Airlines never release the complete passenger list until
all next of kin have been notified and all the name of their dead
relative to be released (which is why you see many partial lists
after crashes). Why weren't the hijackers listed. Look up the
passenger list published from any hijacked American Carrier since
the 70's. You will not find the name of any suspected hijackers.
They never publish the hijackers names. I repeat - NEVER. Why? Ask a
Cop and a Lawyer.

Myth: "Boston airport officials said they did not spot the plane's
course until it had crashed, and said the control tower had no
unusual communications with the pilots or any crew member."

Reality: Actually, this isn't a myth. Once the airplane was above
18,000 feet, it was turned over to an in-route Center. Logan ATC
didn't have the control responsibility of this aircraft.

Myth: "Less than 30 minutes into a journey that was to have taken
six hours, Flight 175 took a sharp turn south into central New
Jersey, near Trenton, an unusual diversion for a plane heading west,
airline employees said. It then headed directly toward Manhattan.

Somewhere between Philadelphia and Newark--less than 90 minutes from
Manhattan--the aircraft made its final radar contact,..."

Reality: Its not 90 minutes from Central New Jersey to the WTC its
15 when traveling at 400 knots.

Myth: "ABC-TV NEWS has learned that shortly before the plane changed
directions, someone in the cockpit radioed in and asked the FAA for
a new flight plan, with a final destination of Washington.

Now, THAT conversation must have been interesting! You can imagine
the response of the air traffic controller: "Excuse me? Flight 93,
you're in the middle of a scheduled trip to San Francisco, but
you're just changed your mind and want to spend the day in
Washington? Please explain."

Reality: I'll be happy to explain. At 9:37am EST all aircraft are
ordered to land at earliest possible suitable site. Flight 93 in an
effort NOT TO CALL ATTENTION TO ITSELF at 9:47am, requests a new
Flight Plan back to the east in order to comply with the FAA
request. Based on the obvious mass confusion going on in getting
hundreds of flight down, Cleveland Center sees this as reasonable at
first. From Cleveland, BWI is a relatively close airport in terms of
commercial flight. Its a Good Alternate for a west coast bound plane
ordered to land. Its not unreasonable since BWI and Reagan National
are both large UNITED BASE Fields and a company pilot wants to land
at a Company Airport. Pittsburgh is home to U.S Airways. Landing
where you don't OWN GATES causes extra paperwork, you know, fuel,
using the other guy's gates, etc.

Finally lets talk about what would happen if just such a thing did
happen (remote control takeover)

1. Pilot Radio's FAA

2. Pilot Radio's Company Dispatch on Company Channel (somewhere
around 129.500 to 134.500 Mhz)

3. Somebody with a scanner hears it.

4. Pilot thinks he has a runaway flight control system. He kills
flight computer number 1 and goes with 2. If that fails he re-
initializes the system and the bird flies in dumb mode for a short
while. If that fails he re-initializes again and dumps all flight
course data and reverts to dumb mode and manually enters way points.
If that fails he kills primary and goes to dumb mode for rest of
flight (Boeing learned from the Airbus incident. The 757/767 glass
cockpit allows the pilot to have the final say)

5. If all else fails, pilot will kill the system, drop the air motor
(a little emergency generator that drops into the slip stream and
generates power with a small propeller and land ASAP with only
partial hydraulic boost and a turn and bank. (Thank you Air Canada).

6. All 4 aircraft, assuming they were not hijacked, had sufficient
time to do the above.

7. There are recordings from Flight 175 of the hijacker speaking.
Seems evident the PIC (Pilot in Command) held down the push to talk
on the yoke so somebody would know he was being hijacked. It also
means he wasn't being allowed to use the radio. The hijacker was
even recorded saying NO ONE WOULD BE HURT. So the PILOTS FOLLOWED
POLICY and did not resist.

8. An 8 year old could kick in a cockpit door.

9. Whoever flew the plane that hit the south tower in the last few
second, wasn't a well-trained pilot. It was a sloppy uncoordinated
turn (aileron roll, no rudder) and he damn near missed the building.
A trained pilot using Global Hawk would have done better. Heck, he
would have had to line up better since tight turns are hard via
remote control..try it some time.

=======

Comment From Chris L. 1-4-2

Jeff,

I have a tad bit of information regarding the remote control of
aircraft I would like to share just for FYI to folks that are still
uncertain.

I had a conversation with a co-workers husband, who just happens to
work for the largest airline as a Fight Mechanic. We had this
conversation two years ago.

He and I speaking over lunch about his job and what he did on
aircraft. We were making comments on how many times we had flown. He
stated that he would take flights to listen and feel the plane out
after doing repairs or prior to. The conversation shifted to safety
and the safeguards in place for a situation where the flight crew
might become incapacitated. What he said to me was shocking enough
at the time but now is even more so.

According to this Fight Mechanic, every fifth landing is controlled
by the "AUTO PILOT". To test the system and make sure that it is
"always" working properly. Now this system of the aircraft, is
linked to the transponder system that was switched off on the
fateful flights. I am uncertain of the particulars of how it all
works.

Regardless, it certainly makes me, at the very least, question the
facts presented. If the technology is there for a flight to land
itself, when others including pilots have said "it's the landing and
taking off part that is hard", then can it be that much more
difficult to plug in some numbers and let the computer do the rest.

I strongly agree with the idea of an inquiry into the evidence and
the true facts behind the "attacks". However, I also am a little at
odds on what good it might do. We already have numerous cases of
alleged and proven wrongful doings by our government, and yet
nothing seems to ever be done about it. We are supposed to raise
concerns and relay information to others so that they can decide and
yet they just ignore it or they blow it off as hype and speculation.

I for one, concern myself with the world that I am leaving behind
for my children. It bothers me that the majority of people choose to
deny the reality of the world we live in today. It saddens me that I
cannot speak more openly about issues with out raising suspicion or
ridicule. But what good can you do when your trying to earn a living
in today's economy.

I have come to realize that many people don't have the time to stop
and think about it. They are so busy paying bills and supporting a
life style they fail to see the writing on the wall. Or, are they
are so conditioned to ignore what is happening? Hmmm...

I think that it will take much more before this nation wakes up!

Sincerely,
Chris L.
A concerned citizen.

Comment From Gene Bass 1-4-2

Jeff -

Some important issues that nobody has pointed out on your site (or
rarely talks about) is that prior to 9/11 it was perfectly legal to
carry knives on board a commercial airplane. Not only was it legal,
but security staff rarely, if ever, measured the knives for
compliance with the then existing regulations regarding maximum
blade length. Even with the new security measures restricting
knives, people forget the fact that knives are readily available
that are "totally undetectable" by even the most sophisticated metal
detectors. Making cockpit doors bullet proof may sound logical, but
bullet resistant is just that. Ask anyone that wears a level III
bullet proof vest what happens when a someone puts a knife into it?
I hope they are making them cut resistant as well.

Along those lines, do you think they are training flight attendants
in the use of fire extinguishers? Last time I checked, nobody had
the ability to detect 3 gallons of flammable liquid riding in a
Camelpak on someone's body. While I could go on all night with the
vulnerabilities of our modern day airlines, I think my point is
made.

While our National Guard troops look wonderful standing at all the
airports with M-16's and 9mm handguns, I think our government is
giving people a serious false sense of security. If a terrorist is
willing to blow up a well protected military base, do you think they
are concerned with guard troops who are half asleep from the
boredom? Perhaps a better option is to put U.S. Marshals in full
uniform armed with 12 gauge stabilized bean bag rounds that have no
chance of penetrating aircraft walls but a very good chance of
knocking down a terrorist. Ever stand next to a stun grenade?

I suppose by making Marshals plain clothes it's a better way to put
fewer agents in the air, who would notice? The bottom line is, you
don't often see a terrorist bringing a knife to a gunfight! If the
government really wants to protect the flying public, they need to
start implementing real solutions to serious problems.

Comment From Simon Rika 1-4-2

I have just been reading the comment page discussing whether it was
possible for the aircraft used on Sept 11 to have been automatically
guided onto their targets. There has been mention of Global Hawk and
even cruise missile type technologies, but no one has mentioned the
built in capabilities of the 757-767 fleet. Here is a short quote
from the Boeing homepage:

"A fully integrated flight management computer system (FMCS)
provides for automatic guidance and control of the 757-200 from
immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing. Linking
together digital processors controlling navigation, guidance and
engine thrust, the flight management system ensures that the
aircraft flies the most efficient route and flight profile for
reduced fuel consumption, flight time and crew workload.

The precision of global positioning satellite system (GPS)
navigation, automated air traffic control functions, and advanced
guidance and communications features are now available as part of
the new Future Air Navigation System (FANS) flight management
computer."
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757-200/background.html
(now dead link - go to:
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family/200back/back4.html)

Now consider this; If a 757 can be programmed in normal use to
navigate itself from immediately after takeoff till final approach
and even landing, then what need was there for extra military
technologies? All you would need to do is fool the FMCS into
thinking that the WTC was a runway, and it would line up the
aircraft perfectly with that 'runway'. Also most avionics suites
have easily replaceable circuit boards etc to allow quick and easy
maintenance. How hard would it be to sneak a different circuit board
into the FMCS that would ensure that the pilots would not be able to
prevent the aircraft from carrying out its mission?

Also, notice the mention of "automated air traffic control
functions". What else can that mean other than the aircraft
responding to ground based instructions without pilot input?

So with the technology available commercially and probably already
fitted to the aircraft, the aircraft could be made to attack a
target much the same as a cruise missile, and possibly even act like
a ground controlled drone responding to course corrections sent by
ground (or air) based systems. Could this be the reason for the
unmarked white jet seen in the vicinity of the crash of Flight 93?
Was this white aircraft tailing its charge, and when phone
intercepts showed that the passengers were trying to do something,
did it order the aircraft to crash itself?

==========

Now consider this; If a 757 can be programmed in normal use to
navigate itself from immediately after takeoff till final approach
and even landing, then what need was there for extra military
technologies? All you would need to do is fool the FMCS into
thinking that the WTC was a runway, and it would line up the
aircraft perfectly with that 'runway'. Also most avionics suites
have easily replaceable circuit boards etc to allow quick and easy
maintenance. How hard would it be to sneak a different circuit board
into the FMCS that would ensure that the pilots would not be able to
prevent the aircraft from carrying out its mission?

Also, notice the mention of "automated air traffic control
functions". What else can that mean other than the aircraft
responding to ground based instructions without pilot input?

============
Therefore, the 19 Arab "hijackers" didn't even need to board the
planes. You didn't even need "hijackers." All you need is 'Global
Hawk' technology to take over control of the aircraft from the
ground. By the US government refusing to release any of the pilot-
to-ground control communication from the (allegedly destroyed)
black boxes in the aircraft, the US government blacks out any
conversation from the "hijacked" airline pilots possibly telling the
control tower that the flight controls of their planes had been
taken over.
===========
Probably one of the biggest giveaways that Bin Laden is not the main
"Mastermind" behind 911 is the fact that since 911, there have been
NO additional "terrorist" acts perpetrated against, or in, the US or
Europe. Not one bullet has been fired, not one bomb exploded by a
Bin Laden "terrorist" in the US or Europe.

Here you have the supposed "master terrorist", Bin Laden, who
supposedly committed the biggest terrorist act ever on U.S. soil and
yet he has not been able to commit even a small terrorist act
against his "enemy" the US since 911. Afghanistan is being bombed to
smithereens and thousands of innocent defenseless Afghani men ,women
and children have been killed by American forces -- shame, shame,
shame. Bin Laden's Al Queda forces are being killed and destroyed
and the "enemy terrorist" is not fighting back?? We are told by the
U.S. government that Bin Laden has thousands of "sleeper operatives"
just waiting in the wings to commit terrorist acts in the U.S. and
Europe. We are shown videotapes of bin Laden that US officials say
could contain hidden code words from Bin Laden that will send these
"sleeper terrorists" on a killing spree in the US and Europe. But
absolutely nothing is happening from the Bin Laden "terrorists" that
are supposedly in the U.S. and Europe.