Operation 911: NO SUICIDE PILOTS
by Carol A. Valentine
Curator, Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum
http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum
October 5, 2001--There were no "suicide" hijackers aboard those jets
on September 11. Advanced robotics technology, not the hijackers,
was controlling the jets when they crashed. Fantastic? Before I
explain, read about the history-making robot jet plane.
Global Hawk--Here 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 Global Hawk's Australian 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 flew 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. "
The article was available on the ITN website on September 19, at this
URL:
http://www.itn.co.uk/news/20020424/world/05robotplane.shtm
.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.
I looked for the ITN article on the Global Hawk after I read Mr.
Ayling's comments. The article had been removed from the ITN
website.
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," 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.
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," 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 the 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." (Washington Post, "On flight 77: 'Our Plane Is Being
Hijacked." 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, 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's 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," (pg. 11). (Washington Post,
September 12, 2001, "On Flight 77: 'Our Plane Is Being Hijacked.,
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 [Maryland]
Journal 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 .S 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 (U.S. News an 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," 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 Christian Science Monitor
story discussed below, in "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 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.
"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." (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," (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 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' rom 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. Therefore, the
"hijackers had a bomb" story was necessary. For example:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/632626.asp
Missing Air Traffic Control Conversations
According to a 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.htm
l
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.htm
l
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua175.victims.ht
ml
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua93.victims.htm
l
Then I went searching on Usenet for more information. I found that
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/A37629.2001Sep27.html
(Does not work! -- G.)
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
(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 flew 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."
--
Carol A. Valentine
President, Public Action, Inc.
Copyright, October, 2001. May be reproduced for non-commercial
purposes.
Have you seen the Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum?
See what they did to the mothers and children--
http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum
|