911 Big Inside Job #1
DATE: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:36:03
From: "Carol A. Valentine"
Did NORAD Send The "Suicide" Jets? -- Part I of 2
by Carol A. Valentine
Curator, Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum http://www.Public-Action.com
Copyright, February, 2002
May be reproduced for non-commercial purposes.
This article soon to be available at:
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/noradsend.html
First issued February 12, 2002
Reissued with revisions, February 23, 2002
*************************** Foreword ****************************
Since September 11, the basic facts/factoids concerning 9-11 (the departure
times of the aircraft, etc.) have varied depending on the news organization
consulted. In this article, I have used as my default the facts/factoids
given in Time magazine's September 11 edition unless otherwise indicated.
*****************************************************************
February 23, 2002 -- Those of us who have been watching know Operation 911
was an inside job, pulled off by remote controlled aircraft. We also know
that the military organization responsible for protecting American skies ---
the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) -- did not show up on
September 11, leaving the skies wide open for the remote controlled jets to
work their deadly havoc.
Some will tell you the world is full of coincidences. Here is one for the
books. The very people who left the American skies open for the 9-11 attack
-- NORAD -- are among the world's leading experts on remote controlled
aircraft.
NORAD personnel had the means to send those planes to attack. And NORAD
created the opportunity for those planes to attack. This elevates NORAD to
Suspect Number One.
Yes, NORAD trigger men, traitors, may have guided the "suicide jets" on
September 11. The dog we bought to guard the hen house may well have taken
the day off and killed the chickens.
*** About NORAD ***
NORAD is the military organization formed by treaty between the U.S.
and Canada to monitor and defend North American skies against enemy
aircraft, missiles, and space vehicles. In the US, NORAD has an agreement
with the Federal Aviation Administration to cooperate in emergency civil
aviation situations when aircraft go off course or are hijacked.
For information on NORAD, see Canada's Department of National Defence
website, "Canada-United States Defense Regulations,"
http://www.dnd.ca/menu/canada-us/bg00.010_e.htm or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/norad
You can read FAA/NORAD regulations at: http://www.faa.gov/Atpubs/MIL
You may want to pay particular attention to Chapter 7, which deals with the
escort of hijacked aircraft. In addition, read the discussion of military
interception of civilian aircraft in "Mr.
Cheney's Cover Story," by Bykov & Israel. Look at the discussion of how
NORAD jets force troublesome aircraft to land.
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-2.htm
*** NORAD, Masters Of Remote Control ***
Since 1959, NORAD personnel have been installing remote control units in a
variety of aircraft and remotely controlling those aircraft in sophisticated
aeronautical maneuvers, including combat practice.
See "Thwarting skyjackings from the ground," written by Alan Staats for
Facsnet, and posted on October 2, 2001. (Facsnet is an education service
provided for its reporters by Associated Press.)
http://www.facsnet.org/issues/specials/terrorism/aviation.php3 or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/facsnet/aviation.php3 (Look at paragraph
entitled "History on remote control.")
"Controlling the aircraft from the ground is nothing new. The military has
been flying obsolete high performance fighter aircraft as target drones
since the 1950s. In fact, NORAD (the North American Air Defense Command)
had at its disposal a number of U.S. Air Force General Dynamics F-106 Delta
Dart fighter aircraft configured to be remotely flown into combat as early
as 1959 under the auspices of a program known as SAGE. These aircraft could
be started, taxied, taken off, flown into combat, fight, and return to a
landing entirely by remote control, with the only human intervention needed
being to fuel and re-arm them."
Re-read that final sentence in the above quote:
"These [NORAD] aircraft could be started, taxied, taken off, flown into
combat, fight, and return to a landing entirely by remote control . . . "
Given over 40 years of institutional experience, flying remotely controlled
"suicide" jets into the World Trade Center towers would have been a piece of
cake for NORAD. This information puts NORAD's failure to protect our skies
on September 11, 2001 in a new light.
*** NORAD, Transponders, and Conventional Radar ***
Transponders are receiver/transmitter devices installed on planes for the
purpose of tracking their location. Sometimes called "secondary radar,"
transponders tell Air Traffic Control the latitude, longitude, altitude, and
speed of the aircraft as well as the plane's identification, airline and
flight number.
Compare transponders with conventional, or "primary radar," which detects
distant objects and determines their position, velocity, and other
characteristics by analysis of very high frequency radio waves reflected
from the surface of the aircraft. Conventional radar shows the latitude and
longitude of the aircraft, but, unlike transponders, will not reveal the
airline, flight number, nor altitude of the aircraft.
For years air traffic controllers have relied on conventional radar, and it
still works. One experienced pilot I interviewed told me that on several
occasions he was flying aircraft when the transponder failed. Air Traffic
Control simply located his position with conventional radar, no problem.
For more information on transponders, see "Transponder Basics," written by
Tom Rogers, a pilot and a Ph.D. physicist who owns an avionics equipment
company. The article on the website is undated; however, the author has
confirmed (via e-mail to me dated February 10, 2002) that the information
contained in the article is current. I quote from that article:
"Today, virtually all ATC radar installations are equipped with both primary
and secondary radar capability."
http://www.avweb.com/articles/transpon.html or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/transpon
Many Americans I have spoken to believe that NORAD failed to do its job on
September 11 because the "suicide pilots" turned off the transponders in
each of the four planes. NORAD was thus unable to find the location of the
aircraft and consequently could not intercept them, they say.
Think about it. NORAD's job is to protect us from enemy bombers and
missiles sent over our skies by foreign powers. Would those foreign powers
be considerate enough to put transponders on their bombers and missiles so
NORAD could locate them and shoot them down? Of course not. NORAD is
expected to find unidentified flying objects without transponders.
Confirm this by visiting the Canadian Defense website again, "Canada-United
States Defense Regulations."
http://www.dnd.ca/menu/canada-us/bg00.010_e.htm or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/norad
"NORAD uses a network of ground-based radars, sensors and fighter jets to
detect, intercept and, if necessary, engage any threats to the continent."
Transponders help to filter out all identifiable aircraft for NORAD and
allow them to focus on those craft that are unidentified. An aircraft
flying without a transponder gets special attention. NORAD must have known
when each of the transponders in the four "suicide" jets was turned off, and
must have known immediately. At all times, NORAD must have known the
location of each of the four planes. (See expanded discussion of NORAD's
surveillance capabilities in Part II, in section "NORAD vs. FAA -- Who Sees
What?" http://www.Public-Action.com/911/noradsend2.html .)
Before we go any further, let us consider the implications of the so-called
hijackers/suicide pilots turning off the transponders. If the "hijackers"
knew enough about transponders to shut them off, they surely must have known
the aircraft could be tracked and located by conventional radar. Why, then,
did the "hijackers" turn off the transponders? There's a question to ponder.
Put in other words, why did the suicide pilots want to keep the name of the
airline, the flight number, the altitude, and the speed of the aircraft a
secret, even though the latitude and longitude of the aircraft could not be
kept secret? Turning off the transponders would not have helped the mission
if NORAD was doing its job. The suicide pilots would have known NORAD would
not be fooled by the trick.
*** Deflecting Attention From NORAD ***
Those who want to pursue the War on Islam of course want to sustain the lie
that Muslim suicide pilots were responsible for 9-11. They want to keep the
real trigger men -- the men working under the NORAD cover -- hidden from
public view.
So public attention must be deflected from NORAD's culpability and focused
on the FAA and the failure of "the system." Top FAA executives and the
FAA/NORAD liaison people were of course involved and could give us
information. Their failure to speak is either a sign that they have been
ordered to shut their mouths for the sake of "national security" or a
testament to some other complicity.
While reading the following, notice the varied nature of the diversionary
"what did the FAA know and when did they know it and when did they tell
NORAD what they knew" controversy. You will notice that no one mentions
NORAD's access to radar, nor a description of what NORAD could see.
(Further discussion of this topic in Part II.) Instead there is constant
fudging about radar data in general and a pretense that there is no cold,
objective evidence that can be examined to tell us what really happened that
day.
*** Path of Flight 11 ***
The first plane to hit the WTC, American Flight 11, left Boston's Logan
Airport at 7:59 a.m. bound for Los Angeles. In its story "The nation
reels," published on September 12, 2001, The Christian Science Monitor says
of Flight 11:
"Shortly afterward, as aircraft (sic) was making its turn toward New York
City, the plane's transponder was turned off. With its transponder off, its
altitude became a matter of guesswork for the controllers, although the
plane was still visible on radar ..."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0912/p1s1-usju.html or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/csmonitor
Nice that the civilian conventional radar system was mentioned, but note
that there is no mention of the mission and capabilities of NORAD. As the
Canadian government tells us, " . . . NORAD uses a network of ground-based
radars, sensors and fighter jets to detect, intercept and, if necessary,
engage any threats to the continent."
*** United Statement on Flight 175's Radar History ***
United Flight 175 left Boston's Logan Airport at 7:58 a.m., headed for Los
Angeles. At 9:06 a.m., it was the second plane to hit the WTC. United
Airlines released a press statement that day. Referring the Flight 175, the
press statement contains this sentence:
"Last radar contact with the aircraft was between Newark, NJ, and
Philadelphia, PA."
Yet we know Flight 175 continued on to New York and hit the south tower of
the WTC. United could have said that the transponder was turned off, and
included the information that the plane was still being tracked by
conventional radar. Instead, United gave the impression that the craft was
not visible on radar "between Newark, NJ and Philadelphia, PA," and was
never seen on radar again. How is that possible? And of course no mention
of NORAD.
http://www.ual.com/site/primaryPR/0,10026,1534_877,00.html or
http://www.public-action.com/911/ual175radar/
*** Washington Post on Flight 77 ***
Let's turn now to the Washington Post, one of the nation's loudest
cheerleaders for the War on Islam. See "Pentagon Crash Highlights a Radar
Gap," (November 3, 2001), covering Flight 77.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A3
2597 2001Nov2
American Airlines Flight 77 left Dulles Airport near Washington, D.C.
at 8:10 a.m. and hit the Pentagon at 9:40. a.m. The Post states it
disappeared from radar screens at 8:50 a.m., when the "hijackers" turned off
the transponder. But now the Post turns attention to the FAA's ability to
track the plane with conventional radar.
"The answers to the mystery of the aircraft's disappearance begin with the
fact that hijacking took place in an area served by only one type of radar,
FAA officials confirmed ..."
The article goes on to say that "the radar installation near Parkersburg,
W.Va., was built with only secondary radar -- called 'beacon-only' radar.
That left the controllers monitoring Flight 77 at the Indianapolis center
blind when the hijackers apparently switched off the aircraft's transponder."
Later we shall see that when Gen. Ralph Eberhart, commander of NORAD,
testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on October 25, other
facts/factoids were asserted concerning Flight 77's path. Sen.
Levin stated that Flight 77 was seen on radar, over West Virginia, heading
east, at 8:55 a.m. Gen. Eberhart did not dispute those facts/factoids. See
"Sen. Levin Told To Ask The FAA." But let's use this facts/factoids for the
moment in making this analysis:
Flight 77's transponder was turned off at 8:56 a.m., eleven minutes after
Flight 11 had hit the first tower of the WTC. Before Flight 11 crashed, its
transponder had been turned off. The non-working transponder on Flight 77
should have been a warning of another impending disaster. When Flight 77's
transponder was turned off, its location was as clear as a bell. Using
mathematical calculations, it should have been easy for the FAA to estimate
a range for its probable location. And remember, NORAD would have this
information in real time. Flight 77 should have been easy to intercept.
Instead, Flight 77 was allowed to meander around the country for 45 minutes,
unsupervised.
As the Canadian government reminds us, "NORAD uses a network of ground-based
radars, sensors and fighter jets to detect, intercept and, if necessary,
engage any threats to the continent." Well, Canada, that's the general idea
. . .
The Washington Post of course neglects to mention that NORAD did not need
transponders to track that plane; but the Washington Post was not yet
through with muddying the waters and diverting attention from NORAD.
"In the case of American Flight 77, it is unclear whether additional warning
time would have changed anything. Military jets were scrambled after
controllers became aware of the hijacked aircraft, but the fighters could
not get to the Washington area in time," says the Post.
That's a dumb lie, even for the Washington Post. Andrews Air Force Base,
home of Air Force One, is just 10 miles from Washington D.C.
How long would it take for Andrews jets, capable of flying at twice the
speed of sound, to get over Washington D.C./Pentagon airspace?
*** Miami Herald on Flight 77 ***
Now let's cut over to the Miami Herald's more believable September 14 story,
"Who watched as flight plan was aborted?"
http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/01/11/WTC_AA77.html or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/norad-miamiherald.html
"FORTY-five minutes. That's how long American Airlines Flight 77 meandered
through the air headed for the White House, its flight plan abandoned, its
radar beacon silent. Originally bound for Los Angeles from Washington, it
got as far as the Ohio border before terrorists disabled the aircraft's
transponder, a piece of equipment that sends a signal back to control centers.
"It was about 9 a.m.
"At that moment, the north tower of the World Trade Center was already in
flames.
"Minutes later, a second airliner would crash into the south tower,
providing unmistakable evidence that the United States was under terrorist
attack.
"Meanwhile Flight 77 was turning around, streaking back east over Virginia
toward the White House and finally slamming into the Pentagon at 9:45 a.m.
"Who was watching in those 45 minutes? . . . Even with the transponder
silent, the plane should have been visible on radar, both to controllers who
handle cross-continent air traffic and to a Federal Aviation Administration
command center outside of Washington, according to air traffic controllers.
"The FAA, which handles air traffic control, would not discuss the track of
Flight 77 or what happened in air-control centers while it was in flight.
Neither would American Airlines."
Why won't the FAA and American discuss Flight 77's route? The damage has
already been done, and the pretext to make war on Israel's enemies has
already been provided. But while the Miami Herald quite properly notes the
suspicious behavior of the FAA and American Airlines, it does not breathe a
word about the mission and capabilities of NORAD.
*** CBS vs. White House on Flight 77 ***
White House spokesmen Ari Fleischer said that according to radar data he had
seen, Flight 77 was headed for the White House. CBS News publicly disagreed
with him, saying that's not what the recorded flight path showed. See
"Primary Target," September 21, 2001,
http://www.cbsnews.com/now/story/0,1597,310721-412.00.shtml or
http://www.public-action.com/911/cbsflight77
What was the source of Ari Fleischer's radar data? What was the source of
CBS's radar data? We are not told. All this information comes from
anonymous sources.
Friends, some stuff happened on September 11. And some stuff didn't.
Radar provides objective evidence of the truth. Yes, someone's playing
games with Ari Fleischer's radar data. Someone's playing games with the
FAA radar data. But no one is talking about NORAD's radar data.
*** Time, Newsweek and US Today on Flight 77: What Did The Radar Really
Say? ***
O.K. We have established that even when its transponder was turned off,
Flight 77's journey would have been tracked by NORAD's conventional radars
and FAA conventional radar systems (Miami Herald, above). Flight 77's
flight path should be no great mystery. Nor should there be any mystery
about the flight paths of the other jets.
Shortly after 9-11, Time, Newsweek, and USA today published diagrams of the
flight paths of the run away jets. You can see those diagrams at:
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/4flights.html
In the copy below those diagrams, you will find a discussion of the many
contradictions among the three. You will also notice that none of these
diagrams show Flight 175 disappearing from the radar screens somewhere
between Newark and Philadelphia, as United Airlines claims.
http://www.public-action.com/911/ual175radar/
But for the moment, let's look at what each says about Flight 77:
* USA Today produced an animated diagram on its webpage which we cached on
October 23, 2001. According to USA Today, on its flight westward, Flight 77
made an unscheduled detour over West Virginia (see the hump.) This detour
does not appear on the Time or Newsweek versions. USA Today's Flight 77
does not cross the border into Ohio, but turns around in West Virginia for
its journey back east. Note how far south USA Today's Flight 77 flew,
compared to the route taken by Time and Newsweek's Flight 77.
* Time Magazine, in its special September 11 edition (no page numbers) shows
that Flight 77 entered Ohio. Note the broken line representing Flight 77's
return trip east, with the words "Return flight path uncertain," under the
broken lines. The same drawing appeared in Time on September 24, 2001 (pg.
32).
* Newsweek published its version of Flight 77's flight path on September 24,
pg. 31. You will see that Newsweek's rendition of Flight 77's return flight
is different than Time's. A point of similarity: the return path is shown
by a broken line, and labelled "estimated path."
Yes. Someone's playing games with radar.
*** Payne Stewart Response: 19 Minutes, hey presto ... ***
On October 25, 1999, at 9:33 a.m. air traffic controllers in Florida lost
touch with a Learjet carrying golfer Payne Stewart and several companions
after it left Orlando headed for Dallas, Texas. Nineteen minutes after Air
Traffic Control realized something was wrong, one or more US Air Force
fighter jets were already on top of the situation, in the air, close to the
Learjet. Moreover, throughout the course of its flight, Payne Stewart's jet
was given escort from National Guard aircraft coordinated across state
lines. See "Golfer Payne Stewart Dies," October 25, 1999, at:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/plane102599.html or read the
National Transportation Safety Board report on Payne Stewart's flight:
http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAB0001.htm or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/stewart (There are minor discrepancies
between the ABC and NTSB reports.)
That was the response when a small private jet lost radio contact with air
traffic control over a relatively sparsely populated area in Florida.
Compare that to what was done when they lost communication with four
commercial passenger jets flying over the populous northeast on September
11, 2001.
*** September 11 Response: 80 Minutes and waiting ... ***
Again, the first plane to hit the WTC was American Airlines Flight 11. It
left Logan Airport in Boston at 7:59 a.m. According to "A Plane Left Boston
and Skimmed Over River and Mountain in a Deadly Detour," published by The
New York Times on September 13, 2001,
"The plane held on course, almost due west, for only 16 minutes.
"Just past Worcester, Mass., instead of taking a southerly turn, the Boeing
767 swung to the north at 8:15. It had been taken over . . .
"Five minutes later, at 8:20, Flight 11 failed to follow an instruction to
climb to its cruising altitude of 31,00 feet. It was this point that air
controllers suspected something was wrong. And just about then the plane's
transponder, a piece of equipment that broadcast its location, went out."
When Flight 11 veered sharply off course at 8:15 a.m., Air Traffic Control
should have known immediately something was wrong. But apparently they did
not try to get in touch with Flight 11, and allowed five minutes to go by
before instructing it to climb to 31,000 feet. Given that the plane was off
course already, why didn't ATC tell it to get back on course? And given
that it was off course, why tell the pilots to climb? We are not told. But
let's put these considerations aside. Air Traffic Control should have known
something was severely amiss at 8:15 a.m., or at the latest, 8:20. a.m.
Yet Flight 11 and three more passenger jets were sequentially permitted to
go missing and run amok for at least one hour and 20 minutes (80 minutes --
the Pentagon was hit at 9:40 a.m.) without NORAD getting its jets in
position to intercept the runaway craft.
Compare NORAD's performance on September 11, 2001 with its performance on
October 25, 1999, in the Payne Stewart case.
*** Real Hijackers Would Plan On NORAD Showing Up ***
"To be able to make these attacks within an half hour [of each other] - that
shows an incredible degree of organization or skill," says Stanley
Bedlington, a retired senior analyst at the CIA counterterrorism center."
(Quoted in The Christian Science Monitor, "The national reels," September
12, 2001.)
Rubbish, Mr. Bedlington. Had there been real hijackers, they would have
earned a "D" for this effort. Careful planners would have researched the
expected reaction time of NORAD. The Payne Stewart example was already
well-known, and the NTSB report was publicly available. Real hijackers
would expect NORAD would be onto them in 19 minutes following detection of a
problem. (Payne Stewart, above.) Surely this is Hijackology 101.
Look at the three diagrams again:
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/4flights.html
Real hijackers with "an incredible degree of organization or skill" would
not have taken jets from Boston to hit New York, and given the NORAD 30
minutes and 50 minutes, respectively, to intercept them.
Real hijackers would not have taken a jet from Dulles and meandered all the
way to Ohio and back again before hitting the Pentagon.
Real hijackers with even a modicum of organization or skill would have
hijacked planes from Kennedy or LaGuardia to hit the WTC towers shortly
after take-off and struck like lightning while the planes were close to
their targets, before anyone had a chance to react.
Real hijackers would have hijacked a plane from National,
Baltimore-Washington, or Dulles airports and hit the Pentagon shortly after
take-off and struck like lightning while the plane was close to its target
and before anyone had a chance to react.
Remember, real hijackers would have believed they had, at the very most, a
19-minute window of opportunity before NORAD interception, as proven by the
Payne Stewart case. They would not have believe they had an 80-minute
window of opportunity, as NORAD gave them on September 11 (Flight 11 went
amiss at 8:15-8:20 a.m, Pentagon hit 80 minutes later at 9:40 a.m.).
No. "Real" hijackers did not pull off this caper. Believing that NORAD
tried to protect us but was bested by superior hijacker strategy is akin to
taking professional wrestling seriously. DC Dave
(http://thebird.org/host/dcdave ) put it succinctly when he wrote "The Show
Goes On,"
The Rock's opponent cooperates
When he's thrown down on the mat.
Now think of September 11:
Our defense was just like that.
*** A Word About Joe Vialls' "Operation Home Run" ***
Because we have been discussing the Facsnet article on remote control, this
is perhaps the place to mention Joe Vialls' article "Operation Home Run," on
remote control of commercial passenger jets and 9-11. "Operation Home Run"
has been widely circulated on the Internet.
http://www.geocities.com/mknemesis/homerun.html
In a nutshell, Mr. Vialls says that technology that allows controllers on
the ground to assume remote control of aircraft had been secretly installed
in US commercial passenger jets. Mr. Vialls says that unauthorized persons
assumed control of the remote control systems on September 11 and caused the
crashes.
Now let's look at the October 2 Facsnet article "Thwarting skyjackings from
the ground" once again. Notice the subtitle: "Automated airplane landing
systems are advanced enough to bring a hijacked airplane 'home.'"
http://www.facsnet.org/issues/specials/terrorism/aviation.php3 or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/facsnet/aviation.php3
The first paragraphs read:
"Technology now exists that could allow a ground crew to override and direct
the flight path of a hijacked plane.
"Following the Sept. 11 attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center,
President George W. Bush called for the creation of a system that would
allow Air Traffic Controllers on the ground the ability to assume remote
control of the aircraft and direct it to a safe landing at a nearby airport.
"The military has employed this capability since the 1950s.
Modifying and implementing the technology for use on passenger carrying
aircraft in the United States would involve significant capital outlay,
research and testing . . . "
The author thus clearly states that the technology "that would allow Air
Traffic Controllers on the ground the ability to assume remote control of
the aircraft" has not yet been installed into US passenger jets. The
author, Alan Staats, warns of the capital outlay involved.
Mr. Staats consulted the following experts when researching his article:
==
Richard Vandam, US Airways A320 Captain; Former Captain, U.S. Air Force,
RF4-C pilot, Reno National Championship Air Races Air Boss and Chase Plane
pilot, check and instructor pilot for vintage Cold War era Eastern Bloc
fighter aircraft (MiG-15, -17, -21). Reno, Nevada.
775-742-5640 (cell), 775-851 1930 (home), e-mail rvandam162@aol.com
==
Aircraft Electronics Association http://www.aea.net . Contact: Paula Derks,
4217 S. Hocker, Independence, MO 64055. Phone: 816-373-6565.
Fax: 816-478-3100; email: paulad@aea.net
==
National Business Aircraft Association. Main contacts: Joseph Ponte, Jack
Olcott, 1200 Eighteenth Street NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC, 20036-2506.
Tel: (202) 783-9000. Fax: (202) 331-8364. Web: http://www.nbaa.org
==
FlightSafety International-Corporate Headquarters. Contact: James Waugh,
Marine Air Terminal, LaGuardia Airport, Flushing, NY 11371-1061. (718)
565-4100,Ý (800) 877-5343; Fax: (718) 565 4174.
Questions@FlightSafety.com
==
Airline Pilots Association, Contact: Gary Dinunno. http://www.alpa.org
==
Mr. Vialls does not cite any documentary evidence, nor does he cite any
authorities upon whom he relied when writing his article. I recently wrote
to Mr. Vialls asking him for the source for his information, and asking if
the technology had ever been successfully used (Footnote 1). Mr. Vialls
answered me that he could not cite any documentation to substantiate his
claim that the Home Run system had been installed or used on US commercial
passenger jets. Everything was top secret, said Mr. Vialls (Footnote 2).
I dont' know about you, but this stretches my credulity to breaking point. I
believe Mr. Vialls has fabricated his "top secret" information. Note the
Vialls article diverts our attention to hijackers outside the government and
military, away from NORAD. I believe there is clear and convincing
evidence that the bad boys operated within the NORAD network, and that's
where our attention should be. In consideration of all the above, I have
come to the conclusion that "Operation Home Run" is bogus, a rear-guard
attempt to help the NORAD coverup.
*** What Motive Did NORAD Have For 9-11? ***
By now we are familiar with the shocking story of the treason of President
Johnson and Secretary of Defense McNamara when they allowed Israel to
torpedo the USS Liberty, and ordered American fighter pilots, who were aloft
and coming to Liberty's aid, back to their aircraft carrier.
http://www.USSLiberty.org
When it comes to treason in high places on behalf of Israel, we in the US
have seen it already. And every administration since the time of the
Liberty attack has cooperated in the treason by failing to investigate and
punish the traitors. Such is the bald and ugly State of the Union.
On September 10, 2001, just one day before 9-11, The Washington Times ran a
front-page story "US troops would enforce peace under Army study." The Times
quoted officers in the Army's School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS). Of
the Mossad, Israel's intelligence/dirty trick service, the SAMS officers
said: "Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target US forces
and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act." Repeat: Israel's Mossad is:
"Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target US forces and make it look
like a Palestinian/Arab act."
http://www.public-action.com/911/sams.html
"Let's you and him fight," has been a tactic used through the ages by
intelligence agents. If you can goad someone else to destroy your enemy,
why not? Thus it is with 9-11. American Zionists -- both of the
"Christian" and "Jewish" varieties -- have seized upon 9-11 and used it as a
pretext to sweep the world clean of Islam, the burr under Israel's saddle.
And NORAD was used to set it up.
In this light, it is worthwhile to note that Israel also has expertise in
building unmanned aerial vehicles:
http://www.iai.co.il/dows/Serve/level/English/1.1.4.2.7.2.html
http://wwww.Public-Action.com/911/israel-uav
*** "Don't Look AT 9-11. Look BEFORE. Look AFTER . . ." ***
There are now a plethora of Congressional investigations into 9-11.
None of them will honestly examine what happened that day. Instead,
Congress will focus its attention on the events BEFORE September 11 -- our
alleged intelligence failure to predict the "suicide pilots." Congress will
decide our intelligence agencies need more money and more police state
powers. All opponents to the Empire of Zion must be liquidated. Congress
will do everything in its power to make that happen.
In the same fashion, the Zionist flagship newspaper, The Washington Post,
recently concluded a series of articles about "America's Chaotic Road To
War." The focus was events AFTER September 11.
Neither the Post nor any other newspaper will ever tell the reading public
of NORAD's treachery.
==== Footnote 1 =====
To:
From: "Carol A. Valentine" Subject: Your
HomeRun Article
Cc:
Bcc:
X-Attachments:
Message-Id:
Joe--I've been re-reading your HomeRun article. Interesting stuff!
Can you tell me how you found out that the remote control equipment had been
installed into US commercial passenger planes, and when that equipment was
installed? I can't find any sources myself, and write to ask that you refer
me to your documentation.
Also, can you tell me when this technology was used to foil a hijacking
attempt on a commercial passenger plane?
Many thanks, Joe
==== Footnote 2 =====
(Footnote 2)
Return-Path:
Received: from mx03.mrf.mail.rcn.net ([207.172.4.52] [207.172.4.52])
by mta04.mrf.mail.rcn.net with ESMTP
id
<20020129170220.NKDE16037.mta04.mrf.mail.rcn.net@mx03.mrf.mail.rcn.net>;
Tue, 29 Jan 2002 12:02:20 -0500 Received: from
mail15b.boca15-verio.com ([208.55.91.59])
by mx03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with smtp (Exim 3.34 #5)
id 16VbeF-0005hQ-00
for skywriter@erols.com; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 12:02:19 -0500 Received: from
web9606.mail.yahoo.com (216.136.129.185)
by mail15b.boca15-verio.com (RS ver 1.0.60s) with SMTP id 013557496
for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 12:00:50 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <20020129170202.6252.qmail@web9606.mail.yahoo.com> Received:
from [203.132.95.35] by web9606.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 29 Jan 2002
09:02:02 PST
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 09:02:02 -0800 (PST)From: Joe Vialls
Subject: Re: Your HomeRun Article
To: "Carol A. Valentine" In-Reply-To:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-849438331-1012323722=:5101"
X-Loop-Detect: 1
Hi Carol,
> Can you tell me how you found out that the remote control equipment
> had been installed into US commercial passenger planes, and when that
> equipment was installed? I can't find any sources myself, and write
> to ask that you refer me to your documentation.
German military contacts a decade ago, confirmed by airline staff.
There is absolutely no public documentation of the system, which for several
entirely logical security reasons, was supposed to remain top secret.
To reveal when the equipment was installed would also reveal the specific
aircraft so equipped, and thus vulnerable to attack. This I have agreed not
to comment on.
> Also, can you tell me when this technology was used to foil a
> hijacking attempt on a commercial passenger plane?
To our combined knowledge, although the equipment was subject to rigorous
operational trials by selected test pilots, it has never been used "in
anger". Situations on the few flights where it might have been useful were
defused using lesser [or other] means, and shortly thereafter hijacking in
the west virtually ceased altogether.
Sorry I can't be of more assistance.
=== End of Footnotes ===
--
Carol A. Valentine
President, Public Action, Inc.
http://www.Public-Action.com
See the handiwork of the world's leading terrorist organization, the FBI:
Visit the Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum
911 Lies exposed at http://www.public-action.com/911/ * Operation 911: NO
SUICIDE PILOTS
* The Taliban Home Video
* Bin Laden: AUTHENTIC INTERVIEW
* 911 Terror: Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics * Operation Northwoods: The
Counterfeit * Osama bin Surplus
* Osama bin CIA Agent
* Press Uses Actors In War On Islam
|