|
The Northrop Grumman Global Hawk is
a robotized American military jet that has a wingspan of a Boeing 737.
"The aircraft essentially flies itself, right from takeoff, right through
to landing, and even taxiing off the runway," according to the Australian
Global Hawk manager Rod Smith.
by Carol A. Valentine
Curator, Waco Holocaust Electronic
Museum, October 5, 2001
There were no "suicide" pilots on
those September 11 jets. The jets were controlled by advanced robotics and
remote-control technology, not hijackers. Fantastic? Before I explain,
read about the history-making robot/remote-controlled jet plane.
Global Hawk: Now You Have It ...
The Northrop Grumman Global Hawk is
a robotized American military jet that has a wingspan of a Boeing 737. The
excerpts below were taken from an article entitled: "Robot plane flies
Pacific unmanned," which appeared in the April 24, 2001 edition of
Britain's International Television News:
"The aircraft essentially flies
itself, right from takeoff, right through to landing, and even taxiing off
the runway," according to the Australian Global Hawk manager Rod Smith.
A robot plane has made aviation
history by becoming the first unmanned aircraft to fly across the Pacific
Ocean.
The American high-altitude Global
Hawk spy plane made flew (sic) across the ocean to Australia, defence
officials confirmed.
The Global Hawk, a jet-powered
aircraft with a wingspan equivalent to a Boeing 737 [NOTE: two of the
aircraft involved in the 911 crashes were Boeing 757s, two were Boeing
767s] flew from Edwards Air Force Base in California and landed late on
Monday at the Royal Australian Air Force base at Edinburgh, in South
Australia state. . . .
It flies along a pre-programmed
flight path, but a pilot monitors the aircraft during its flight via a
sensor suite which provides infra-red and visual images. (http://www.itn.co.uk/news/20010424/world/05robotplane.shtm
[link expired])
... And Now You Don't
Then, on September 20, 2001, The
Economist published comments from a former boss of British Airways, Robert
Ayling:
On autopilot into the future
"Robert Ayling, a former boss of British Airways, suggested in The
Financial Times this week that aircraft could be commandeered from the
ground and controlled remotely in the event of a hijack ..." (as quoted by
KC <kettererkey@home.com> on alt.current-events.wtc explosion).
So, even though the ITN article was
published on April 24, in September, after the 911 crashes, Mr. Ayling is
pretending Global Hawk technology is a thing of the future.
Then The New York Times ran this:
. . . In addition, the president
[President Bush] said he would give grants to airlines to allow them to
develop stronger cockpit doors and transponders that cannot be switched
off from the cockpit.
Government grants would also be
available to pay for video monitors that would be placed in the cockpit to
alert pilots to trouble in the cabin; and new technology, probably far in
the future, allowing air traffic controllers to land distressed planes by
remote control. ("Bush to Increase Federal Role in Security at Airports,"
The New York Times, Sept. 28, 2001; emphasis added.)
So, then, right after Operation 911
was pulled off, two men of world influence were pretending such technology
had not yet been perfected. That was dishonest. And revealing.
Run a Google Advanced Search on the
phrase "Global Hawk," and you will find additional information. Meanwhile,
I have attached the text of the ITN article at the end of this piece.
Technically speaking, we could have
a "suicidal" airplane fly into a building without a suicidal pilot.
Robotics and remote control technology has developed to the point that a
high-altitude Global Hawk (or a low-altitude Tomahawk cruise missile) can
be guided into collision with a target without a Kamikaze pilot in the
cockpit.
America And Its Allies Would Never
Attack America!
Now, hold it there! This is US
military technology. We all surely know that the US and its allies would
not conspire to attack America! Or do we?
The Army's School of Advanced
Military Studies (SAMS ) thinks Israel is capable of doing exactly that.
On September 10, 2001, The Washington Times ran a front page story which
quoted SAMS officers:
"Of the Mossad, the Israeli
intelligence service, the SAMS officers say: 'Wildcard. Ruthless and
cunning. Has capability to target US forces and make it look like a
Palestinian/Arab act.'" ("US troops would enforce peace under Army study,"
The Washington Times, Sept.. 10, 2001, pg. A1, 9.) Just 24 hours after
this story appeared, the Pentagon was hit and the Arabs were being blamed.
These SAMS officers are obviously
interested in protecting their country, but not all Americans are. Some
are traitors and pay allegiance to Israel. Recall the June 8, 1967,
Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, and American complicity in the attack.
During the Six Day War, the
Liberty, an American intelligence gathering ship, was sailing in
international waters. Israeli aircraft and torpedo boats attacked it for
75 minutes. http://ennes.org/jim/ussliberty/
When four US fighter jets from a
nearby aircraft carrier came to protect the Liberty, US Defense Secretary
Robert McNamara ordered the jets NOT to come to the Liberty's aid, and
allowed the Israeli attack to continue. Thirty-four Americans were killed
and 171 wounded. http://ennes.org/jim/ussliberty/chapter6.htm
Now consider Operation Northwoods:
In 1962, US military leaders designed a plan to conduct terrorist acts
against Americans and blame Cuba, to create popular sentiment for invasion
of that country. Operation Northwoods included:
Plans to shoot down a CIA plane
designed to replicate a passenger flight and announce that Cuban forces
shot it down.
Creation of military casualties by
blowing up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blaming Cuba: "....casualty
lists in the US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national
indignation," and
Development of a terror campaign in
Miami and Washington, DC.
Information on Operation Northwoods
can be found in James Bamford's Body of Secrets (Doubleday, 2001), and at
the following URLs.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/bal-te.md.nsa24apr24.story
http://www.earlham.edu/archive/opf-l/May-2001/msg00062.html
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/
In other words, US allies and
people within the US military establishment are not opposed to killing
American servicemen and civilians, given the right goal.
Why Take Chances?
Put yourself in the shoes of the
masterminds of Operation 911. The attacks had to be tightly coordinated.
Four jets took off within 15 minutes of each other at Boston, Dulles, and
Newark airports, and roughly two hours later, it was over. The masterminds
couldn't afford to take needless chances.
Years ago I saw a local TV news
reporter interview a New York mugger about the occupational hazards of his
trade. "It's a very, very dangerous trade," the mugger informed the
interviewer. "Some of these people are crazy! They fight back! You can get
hurt!"
If a freelance New York mugger
realized the unpredictable nature of human behavior, surely the pros who
pulled this job off must have known the same truth. Yet we are asked to
believe that the culprits took four jet airliners, with four sets of crew
and four sets of passengers -- armed with (depending on the news reports
you read) "knives," "plastic knives" and "box cutters". Given the crazy
and unpredictable nature of humans, why would they try this bold plan when
they were so poorly armed?
A lady's handbag -- given the
weight of the contents most women insist on packing -- is an awesome
weapon. I know, I have used mine in self defense. Are we to believe that
none of the women had the testosterone to knock those flimsy little
weapons out of the hijackers' hands? And what of the briefcases most men
carry? Thrown, those briefcase can be potent weapons. Your ordinary
every-day New York mugger would never take the chances that our culprits
took.
Flight attendant Michelle
Heidenberger was on board Flight 77. She had been "trained to handle a
hijacking. She knew not to let anyone in the cockpit. She knew to tell the
hijacker that she didn't have a key and would have to call the pilots.
None of her training mattered." ( "On flight 77: 'Our Plane Is Being
Hijacked'," The Washington Post, September 12, 2001, pgs. A 1, 11.)
That's right, The Washington Post
for once is telling the whole truth. Heidenberger's training didn't
matter, the pilots' training didn't matter, the ladies handbags didn't
matter, the mens' briefcases didn't matter. The masterminds of Operation
911 knew that whatever happened aboard those flights, the control of the
planes was in their hands. Even if the crew and passengers fought back, my
hypothesis is that they *could not* have regained control of the planes,
for the planes were being controlled by Global Hawk technology.
Flight 77: "The Plane Was Flown
With Extraordinary Skill"
Once again: Operation 911 demanded
that the attacks be tightly coordinated. Four jets took off within 15
minutes of each other at Boston, Dulles, and Newark airports, and roughly
two hours later, it was over. If we are to believe the story we are being
told, the masterminds needed, at an absolute minimum, pilots who could
actually fly the planes and who could arrive at the right place at the
right time.
American Airlines Flight 77, a
Boeing 757, took off from Dulles Airport in northern Virginia at 8:10 a.m.
and crashed into the Pentagon at 9:40 a.m. 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. The
plane circled 270 degrees from the right to approach the Pentagon from the
west, whereupon Flight 77 fell below radar level, vanishing from
controller's screens, the sources said." ("On Flight 77: 'Our Plane Is
Being Hijacked'," The Washington Post, September 12, 2001, pgs. 1 & 11)
Meet Ace Suicide Pilot Hani Hanjour
Let's look at what we know about
the alleged suicide pilot of American Airlines Flight 77, Hani Hanjour.
According to press reports, Hanjour had used Bowie's Maryland Freeway
Airport three times since mid-August as he attempted to get permission to
use one of the airport's planes. This from The Prince George's Journal
(Maryland), September 18, 2001:
Marcel Bernard, the chief flight
instructor at the airport, said the man named Hani Hanjour went into the
air in a Cessna 172 with instructors from the airport three times
beginning the second week of August and had hoped to rent a plane from the
airport.
According to published reports, law
enforcement sources say Hanjour, in his mid-twenties, is suspected of
crashing the American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon. . . .
Hanjour had his pilot's license,
said Bernard, but needed what is called a 'check-out' done by the airport
to gauge a pilot's skills before he or she is able to rent a plane at
Freeway Airport which runs parallel to Route 50.
Instructors at the school told
Bernard that after three times in the air, they still felt he was unable
to fly solo and that Hanjour seemed disappointed ...
... Published reports said Hanjour
obtained his pilot's license in April of 1999, but it expired six months
later because he did not complete a required medical exam. He also was
trained for a few months at a private school in Scottsdale, Ariz., in
1996, but did not finish the course because instructors felt he was not
capable.
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. Pete Goulatta, a special agent
and spokesman for the FBI, said it is an on-going criminal investigation
and he could not comment. (pg. 1.)
If you were the mastermind who
planned this breathtaking terrorist attack, would you trust a man who took
600 hours of flying time and still could not do the job? Who was paying
for Hanjour's lessons, and why?
Yet this is the man the FBI would
have us believe flew Flight 77 into the Pentagon "with extraordinary
skill." He could not even fly a Cessna 172!
Yes, maneuvering a Boeing 757 into
a 270 degree turn under tense conditions (remember, the culprits were
outmanned and had crude, non-lethal weapons) demanded the skill of a
fighter pilot. But why would those bad, bad, Muslims want to do such a
thing?
By shifting the plane's position so
radically, Flight 77 managed to hit the side of the Pentagon *directly
opposite* the side on which the offices of the Secretary of Defense and
Joint Chief of Staff were located. (Coincidentally, Flight 77 hit the
offices of Army operations (US News and World Report, Sept. 14, 2001, pg.
25). Recall, it was the Army that warned of the possibility that Israel's
Mossad might make a terror attack against the US.) The masterminds of
Operation 911 were prepared to sacrifice the rank and file, but carefully
avoided touching a hair on the head of the brass.
It reminds one of Operation
Northwoods, doesn't it? Remember the rank and file sailors who were to be
sacrificed on a US Naval vessel in Guantanamo Bay, in order to justify war
with Cuba? No, neither Hanjour nor any other Muslim suicide pilot was at
the controls of this plane. It had been fitted with Global Hawk technology
and was being remotely controlled.
Let's Meet The Other Aces
According to The Washington Post
(September 19, 2001, "Hijack Suspects Tried Many Flight Schools," Mohammed
Atta, alleged hijacker of Flight 11, and Marwanal-Al-Shehhi, alleged
hijacker of Flight 175, both of which crashed into the World Trade Center,
attended hundreds of hours of lessons at Huffman Aviation, a flight school
in Venice, Florida. They also took lessons at Jones Aviation Flying
Service Inc., which operates from the Sarasota Bradenton International
Airport. According to the Post, neither experience "worked out."
A flight instructor at Jones who
asked not be identified said Atta and Al Shehhi arrived in September or
October and asked to be given flight training. Atta, the instructor said,
was particularly difficult. "He would not look at your face," the
instructor said. "When you talked to him, he could not look you in the
eye. His attention span was very short."
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 .... "We didn't
kick them out, but they didn't live up to our standards." (page A 15.)
Or try The Washington Post: Alleged
hijackers Nawaq Alhazmi (Flight 77), Khaid Al-Midhar (Flight 77) and Hani
Hanjour (Flight 77) all spent time in San Diego. "Two of the men, Alhazmi
and Al-Midhar, also briefly attended a local fight school, but they were
dropped because of their limited English and incompetence at the
controls....
Last spring, two of the men visited
Montgomery Field, a community airport ... and sought flying lessons. They
spoke to instructors at Sorbi's Flying Club, which allowed them to take
only two lessons before advising them to quit.
"Their English was horrible, and
their mechanical skills were even worse," said an instructor, who asked
not to be named. "It was like they had hardly even ever driven a car ..."
"They seemed like nice guys," the
instructor said, "but in the plane, they were dumb and dumber." ("San
Diegans See Area as Likely Target," The Washington Post, September 24,
2001, pg. A7.)
But the masterminds would not need
competent pilots -- if they had Global Hawk technology.
Missing: Air Traffic Control
Conversations
Now, let's look at the
contemporaneous media coverage of Operation 911. Did you notice that
during the event and for weeks after, we heard no excerpts from the
conversations between the air traffic control centers and the pilots of
the four aircraft?
Those conversations are recorded by
the air traffic control centers. Surely those conversations were
newsworthy. They should have been available to the media immediately. Why
didn't we hear them? I believe the answer to this question is simple:
If we could hear the conversations
that took place, we would hear the airline pilots telling air traffic
control that the controls of their airplanes would not respond. The
pilots, of course, would have no way of knowing that their craft had been
fitted with Global Hawk technology programmed to take over their planes.
But no, we MUST believe the crashes
were the work of Muslim terrorists. Therefore we were not permitted to
hear the news as it happened. We will have to wait for the FBI/military
intelligence people to cook up doctored and fictional conversations. They
will then serve them to the public through the complicitous mass media and
strategically placed "investigative reporters," and we will be asked to
swallow them. Many of us will. (See The Christian Science Monitor story
discussed below, "Conversations with Flight 11.")
Yassaboss
That the airlines cooperated and
did whatever the FBI told them to do is no secret. The Washington Post of
September 12, 2001, says this: "Details about who was on Flight 77, when
it took off and what happened on board were tightly held by airline,
airport and security officials last night. All said that the FBI had asked
them not to divulge details."
Think back to Operation Northwoods
in which the Pentagon considered reporting a bogus passenger airplane
being shot down by a non-existent Cuban fighter jet. The Pentagon was
obviously confident that some airline would go along with the deception.
Not surprising, considering many commercial airline pilots and executives
are former military pilots, and the government controls the airline
industry in many ways. These pilots and executives were trained to do as
they are told, and would be out of a job if they broke the rules.
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. Flight departure and arrival times had been public knowledge. The
masterminds knew the details of their own plans.
No, it was the PUBLIC that was
being denied information, and the significant information being denied was
the conversations between the air traffic controllers and the pilots.
Recall that during the Vietnam War, the US "secretly" bombed Cambodia. The
bombing was no secret to the Cambodians. It was only a secret from the
American public, who were paying for the war and may have objected to the
slaughter. And that's the only purpose of the Operation 911 secrecy: To
keep the information from the public.
Communication With Flight 11
American Airlines Flight 11, a
Boeing 767, left Boston at 7:59 a.m. on its way to Los Angeles. It was
allegedly piloted by Mohamed Atta, one of the pilots who couldn't fly,
discussed above. Flight 11 crashed into the north tower of the WTC at 8:45
a.m.
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."
(The Washington Post, September 12, 2001, "At Logan Airport, Nobody Saw
Plane's Sharp Turn South," pg. A 10.)
Sorry, this report is not credible.
Airplanes are tracked constantly. The skies over the US are for too busy
for us to have a lackadaisical attitude.
Note the date of The Washington
Post story: September 12. Now compare it to the very different story that
appeared a day later, in The Christian Science Monitor:
An American Airlines pilot stayed
at the helm of hijacked Flight 11 much of the way from Boston to New York,
sending surreptitious radio transmissions to authorities on the ground as
he flew.
Because the pilot's voice was
seldom heard in these covert transmissions, it was not clear to the
listening air-traffic controllers which of the two pilots was flying the
Boeing 767. What is clear is that the pilot was secretly trying to convey
to authorities the flight's desperate situation, according to controllers
familiar with the tense minutes after Flight 11 was hijacked.
The story goes on to say that the
conversations were overheard by the controllers because the pilot had
pushed a "push-to-talk" button. "When he [the pilot] pushed the button and
the terrorist spoke, we knew. There was this voice that was threatening
the pilot, and it was clearly threatening. During these transmissions, the
pilot's voice and the heavily accented voice of a hijacker were clearly
audible ...."
There are some logical problems
with this account, of course, not the least of which is that a) we are
told the pilot's voice was seldom heard, b) it was not possible to tell
which pilot was at the controls, and c) during the transmissions the
pilot's voice was clearly audible.
This accounting is spook talk.
Let's get to the heart:
All of it was recorded by a Federal
Aviation Administration traffic control center. Those tapes are now
presumed to be in the hands of federal law-enforcement officials, who
arrived at the flight-control facility minutes after Flight 11 crashed
into the World Trade Center. The tapes presumably could provide clues
about the hijackers -- and may become even more important if they plane's
'black boxes' are damaged or never found. ("Controllers' tale of Flight
11," The Christian Science Monitor, September 13, 2001.)
So, yes, the same "federal
law-enforcement" machinery that cooked up the David Koresh negotiation
tapes and arranged to destroy the evidence at the Mt. Carmel Center in the
April 19 inferno will be handling these records, too.
Flight 175
The Washington Post reported a
similar story for United Airlines Flight 175, which crashed into the south
tower of the World Trade Center tower at 9:06 a.m.
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, according to a statement released by United Airlines. (The
Washington Post, "Everything Seemed Normal When They Left' Boston
Airport," September 12, 2001, pg. A10.)
Once again, there was no
contemporaneous, detailed, first hand information from the air traffic
controllers about communication from the air traffic controllers.
Of course the controls would not
respond to manual directions if they were under the control of Global
Hawk.
Flight 11/Flight 175 Hijacker
Passport Found
We have just mentioned the distinct
possibility that the masterminds of Operation 911 will manufacture
evidence. Well, here is a CNN story for your consideration:
In New York, several blocks from
the ruins of the World Trade Center, a passport authorities said belonged
to one of the hijackers was discovered a few days ago, according to city
Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik. That has prompted the FBI and police to
widen the search area beyond the immediate crash site. ("Leaders urge
'normal' Monday after week of terror, September 16, 2001. Posted 7:07 p.m.
EDT, 23:07 GMT.) http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/gen.america.under.attack/
We are asked to believe that one of
the hijackers brought his passport with him on a domestic fight, even
though he knew he would not need it then, or ever again; that upon impact
the passport flew from the hijacker's pocket (or was he holding it in his
hands?), that the passport flew out of the aircraft, that it flew out of
the burning tower, and that it was carried by the air currents and landed
safely, where it could be discovered, several blocks away ...
Lawd, WHO WRITES THIS STUFF?
Flight 93
United Airlines Flight 93, a Boeing
757, was scheduled to leave Newark Airport at 8:01 a.m. for San Francisco.
We are told it crashed into an abandoned coal mine near Shanksville,
Pennsylvania, at 10:37 a.m., one hour and 50 minutes after the first World
Trade Center tower was hit.
Without a doubt, Flight 93 was shot
down. The first TV network reports said exactly that: Flight 93 had been
shot down by a military jet. That information even made it into the print
media.
Local residents said they had seen
a second plane in the area, possibly an F-16 fighter, and burning debris
falling from the sky. [FBI Agent] Crowley said investigators had
determined that two other planes were nearby but didn't know if either was
military. ("Stories swirl around Pa. crash; black box found," USA Today,
September 14, 2001.)
Pieces of the wreckage have been
found as far away as New Baltimore, about eight miles from the crash site.
When the eastbound plane crashed, a 9-knot wind was blowing from the
southeast, [FBI Agent] Crowley said. ("Bereaved may visit Flight 93 site,"
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Friday, September 14, 2001.)
On September 11, "[r]esidents and
workers at businesses outside Shanksville, Somerset County, reported
discovering clothing, books, papers, and what appear to be human remains.
Some residents said they collected bags-full of items to be turned over to
investigators. Others reported what appeared to be crash debris floating
in Indian Lake, nearly six miles from the crash site." ("Investigators
locate 'black box' from Flight 93; widen search area in Somerset crash,"
Pittsburgh Post Gazette, September 13, 2001.) http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetp3.asp
The Washington Post reported that,
just as Congressional leaders were discussing shooting the plane down,
they learned it had crashed. ("Jetliner Was Diverted Toward Washington
Before Crash in Pa," Sept. 12, 2001, pg. A10.) The North American
Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and the FBI denied that the plane had
been shot down.
The FBI blamed the spread of debris
over an 8-mile area on a 10 mph wind that was blowing at the time. Of the
debris, TIME Magazine of September 11 says: "The largest pieces of the
plane still extant are barely bigger than a telephone book." (Pages in
this edition are not numbered: this quote appears on what should be pg.
40.)
Planes that crash do not
disintegrate in this manner. However, the assertion that the hijackers had
a bomb on board, and the bomb exploded, might provide an explanation for
the disintegration.
There is a problem with this story,
however: Hijackers who planned to crash the plane into the Capitol would
not want, or need, a bomb. In fact, a bomb might be counterproductive:
Suppose it went off before the plane hit the Capitol? The mission would be
ruined. Bringing a bomb on board would greatly increase chances the
hijacker who carried the bomb would be detected when boarding. And it's
hard to imagine why hijackers would mutilate and dismember passengers with
plastic knives and box cutters when they were planning to blow them up,
anyway. No, the bomb story does not wash. You can read one such story at:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/632626.asp
More Missing Air Traffic Control
Conversations
According to an ABC news report by
Peter Dizikes on September 13: "Federal Aviation Administration data shows
Flight 93 followed its normal flight plan until it neared Cleveland, where
the plane took a hard turn south.
"That marks the point at which the
plane must have been hijacked, investigators say. Then it took a turn
east."
Note that the investigators used
the phrase "must have been" hijacked. Didn't they know? Weren't the air
traffic controllers in touch with the pilots? But the direction changes
with the next paragraph:
ABCTVNEWS 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."
According to an MSNBC story of
September 22, 2001, Flight 93 was late taking off, and did not make its
way down the runway until 8:41 a.m. ("The Final Moments of Flight 93"
http://www.msnbc.com/news/632626.asp)
It was aloft for almost two hours,
crashing at 10:37 a.m. Making a rough estimate from the distances traveled
and the time in the air (see TIME Magazine, September 11, "The Paths of
Destruction" ), Flight 93 went off course sometime between 9:45 a.m. and
10:00 a.m. Recall that both towers had been hit by 9:06 a.m., and the New
York airports had been closed since 9:17 a.m. It would have been
impossible for an air traffic controller on duty between 9:45--10:00 a.m.
not to know that commercial air traffic in the US was in a dire emergency
from "suicide planes."
And now Flight 93 calls in, asking
permission to do a U-turn, fly east an hour and a half, and land in
Washington DC ??? What, the pilot was nervous and didn't know there were
airports in the midwest?
I'd love to hear the REAL
conversation between Flight 93 and the air traffic controllers, wouldn't
you? But I think we'll have to wait a while ...
Come to think of it, why would a
*hijacker* call in to ask for an OK to change directions?
Conflicting And Unbelievable
Reports
The networks dropped the story that
Flight 93 had been shot down and now said that Flight 93 passengers called
their families and described a hijacking. The hijackers were armed with
box razors, and overwhelmed the passengers and crew, and told the
passengers they planned to crash into the Capitol in Washington, DC. The
hijackers also mutilated and dismembered the passengers, presumably with
their plastic knives and box cutters. What a messy job that must have
been! We were not told if the hijackers chatted to the passengers about
their plans before, after, or while they were committing the
mutilation/dismemberment. (I heard the mutilation/dismemberment story once
while watching network TV coverage. Then the story was dropped.)
On the other hand, TIME Magazine
reported that one of the passengers called home to say: "We have been
hijacked. They are being kind." (TIME, Sept. 24, pg. 73.)
Are we believing this? I'm not.
No. Something went wrong with the
masterminds' plan. They could not afford to have Flight 93 make a
conventional landing and allow the pilots and passengers to talk about
their experience. They could not afford to have the "hijackers" survive
and the electronic controls of the plane examined. So Flight 93 was shot
down.
Who Were Those People, Anyway?
Before September 11, the combined
forces of US military and domestic intelligence -- the CIA, the FBI, the
Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency -- were clueless
that such a catastrophic event would occur. Yet a day or so later, the FBI
had secured the names and mugshots of each of the 19 hijackers. How did
the FBI know who the hijackers were? After all, all the eyewitnesses are
dead. How could the FBI distinguish between "regular" Muslims and hijacker
Muslims on those flights? Or did they just go through the passenger lists
culling out the Muslim-sounding names and labeling the people bearing
those names as hijackers? "You're Muslim so you're a hijacker..."
On September 30 I looked at the
passenger lists of those four flights. To my surprise, the lists contained
none of the hijackers' names. Here are the URLs I checked:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/
AA11.victims.html
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/
AA77.victims.html
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/
ua175.victims.html
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/
ua93.victims.html
Then I went searching on Usenet for
more information. I found that <AFJS@webtv.net> had noticed the hijackers'
names were not on the passenger lists on September 27, on
alt.culture.alaska, "Re: BLACK BOXES AND BODIES -(2). " I don't know what
you'll find when you look at the passenger lists, but the historical
record is there.
The FBI may be lying, of course,
and the airlines telling the truth: Perhaps none of the "hijackers" were
passengers on those four planes. If that is true, the airlines are helping
the FBI commit a most grievous fraud on the public. What does that say for
the airlines' integrity? In either case, we can place little confidence in
the veracity of the information in those lists. Names could have been
added just as easily as they may have been deleted.
Don't Take The Credit, Take The
Blame
By now you've realized that it's OK
to believe in conspiracies provided they are Muslim conspiracies. In fact,
we MUST believe that a man who dresses in sheets lives in a tent or a cave
in the middle of nowhere -- Osama bin Laden -- was the mastermind. He used
his $300 million fortune to pull off Operation 911. Come to think of it,
how do we know the size of his fortune? Does the FBI know his banker? And
given that the world's banking system is highly centralized and in the
hands of Mr. bin Laden's avowed enemies, how could our terrorist
tent-dweller have retained his fortune all these years? If Mr. bin Laden
could have pulled this off in New York, why didn't he pick on his more
direct enemy, Israel, and do a 911 on them?
Brilliant as Mr. bin Laden is, he
forgot to take credit for the attack. Even worse, he forgot to issue any
demands. He allowed his operatives to use their Muslim names and leave a
clear trail for the FBI to follow. Mr. Atta, the pilot of Flight 11 (north
World Trade Center), was particularly helpful. He kindly left his car at
the Boston Airport. Luckily, an unnamed source drew the FBI's attention to
this car. According to radio reports, the FBI found a suicide note written
in Arabic and a copy of the Koran in the car. Mr. Atta liked to write in
Arabic; he wrote a second, long document in that language, which, for some
reason, he put in his luggage. Coincidentally, this luggage did not make
it to Flight 11, so the FBI found it at the airport. Another lucky break!
But why Mr. Atta would take luggage on a suicide mission has not been
explained. The same note was carried by one of the hijackers on Flight 93,
and, Mother of Miracles! survived the crash, even though the airplane
itself was torn into shards. Everything was so amazing that Bob Woodward,
the man who talks to the dead, was called in to write a story about it
all. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37629%202001Sep27.html
Read Mr. Woodward's article. Mr.
Atta sounds like a Jewish lawyer with his wires crossed, exhorting his
co-conspirators to remember their wills and reminding them that Mohammed
was an "optimist;" exhorting his fellows to "utilize" (ugh--there's a
lawyer's word for you -- what's Arabic for "utilize"?) their few hours
left to ask God's forgiveness. God's forgiveness for what? They were about
to die heros, martyrs in the good cause ...
Sure, we believe every word. We
swallow the whole story.
On the other hand, here is the
International Television News article on the Global Hawk:
Robot plane flies Pacific unmanned
http://www.itn.co.uk/news/20010424/world/05robotplane.shtm [link expired]
(ITN Entertainment April 24, 2001) -- "The aircraft essentially flies
itself, right from take-off, right through to landing, and even taxiing
off the runway." -- Australian Global Hawk manager Rod Smith.
A robot plane has made aviation
history by becoming the first unmanned aircraft to fly across the Pacific
Ocean.
The American high-altitude Global
Hawk spy plane made flew (sic) across the ocean to Australia, defence
officials confirmed.
The Global Hawk, a jet-powered
aircraft with a wingspan equivalent to a Boeing 737, flew from Edwards Air
Force Base in California and landed late on Monday at the Royal Australian
Air Force base at Edinburgh, in South Australia state.
The 8600 mile (13840 km) flight, at
an altitude of almost 12.5 miles (20 km), took 22 hours and set a world
record for the furthest a robotic aircraft has flown between two points.
The Global Hawk flies along a
pre-programmed flight path, but a pilot monitors the aircraft during its
flight via a sensor suite which provides infra-red and visual images.
"The aircraft essentially flies
itself, right from takeoff, right through to landing, and even taxiing off
the runway," said Rod Smith, the Australian Global Hawk manager.
"While in Australia, the Global
Hawk will fly about 12 maritime surveillance and reconnaissance missions
around Australia's remote coastline.
"It can fly non-stop for 36 hours
and search 52,895 square miles (37,000 square km) in 24 hours. Australia
is assessing the aircraft and might buy it in the future.
"Emerging systems such as the
Global Hawk offer Australia great potential for surveillance,
reconnaissance and ultimately the delivery of combat power," said Brendan
Nelson, parliamentary secretary to the Australian defence minister.
"Nelson said the Global Hawk could
be used in combat to 'detect, classify and monitor' targets as they
approached the Australian coast."
Return to Table of Contents |