Your Comments
911 Mystery Puzzle

Remote Control Software
From Larry W
Everyone talks about the schooling the hijackers got to fly those planes, but no one ever addresses a simple fact. None of them had ever flown one of those planes before, and yet three of four were direct hits, the fourth being an aborted mission.
I remember the when I was 16, the first time I was certain I was going to get laid. I was driving my dad's sedan, a 60 Chevy, which I had driven many times before, and I almost wrecked it half a dozen times just headed to the lake. Think of these young men, not much older than I was in that 60 Chevy, flying these mammoth planes, believing they were on their way to meet Allah.
The adrenaline would be pumping, they would be shaking. They were flying at heights they had never experienced and several times the speed they had ever flown. They were flying over unfamiliar territory, yet three of those plane flew directly to their targets without any problems and at an enormous rate of speed they made the final adjustments (view the final bank the plane that hit the second tower made as it sailed into the target) to score direct, dead-center hits on their targets. I don't think so.
I would guess that, much like a cruise missile, those planes were managed by remote control software operated by a VERY experienced pilot safe and secure in a command center somewhere. I think that fact would be born out by the information on the CVR not being released by the Feds. It probably would reflect conversation indicating that control of the plane had been taken from the pilots and the hijackers, and they could not regain that control.
Since the passengers on that craft attempted to apprehend the hijackers by storming the cockpit, they probably became aware of that fact, too, and since they had already been in contact with relatives via cell phone, it is probably why that flight was crashed as unceremoniously as it was.
How's that for a conspiracy theory?
Larry in Overland Park

From Vince Bradley
Jeff, Ever since I "stumbled" onto this site, (Praise Allah or someone for blessing me). I've never stopped coming back...this is truly the best and "makes much more friggin sense than CNN" information around! I've been following this whole WTC/Afghanistan bruhaha since obviously 911 and it's a shame that it takes "well-oiled, media-whore" (skolnick-style) conspiracies to actually get me interested in foreign policy. I'm rambling here, but in regards to the "Global Hawk theory": no theory...Global Hawk FACT.
When I first read "Operation 911 - No suicidal hijackers" by Carol Valentine, I instantly went "Oh, my God why didnt I even consider that!!" Im a computer science graduate from the Old school (somewhere between Atari and Pentium I's) and I remembered discussing in my artificial intelligence classes. the microprocessors and the programming language used for these UAV's of the future (as this was mid 1980's..).
One thing that wasn't mentioned in this article was the fact that after the 3rd plane hit the Pentagon, all planes in the air over 145 seats were automatically grounded and guess what? Those are all 767's!! Not only that, a college friend of mine who doesent think Im a kook and actually believes this global hawk thing works for Lockheed. This guy said that the last Mars landing the US made was a "bet" made between JPL and lockheed Martin that they (JPL) could actually get the gov't to fund a mission to send a kid's remote controlled car toy (like the ones by TYCO..) to mars.. and guess who won the bet???
He's done some tenure as an air traffic controller and noted that he read that flight 93 while on route made a U-TURN somewhere between Kansas and Ohio and headed back (verifiable on the net) AT THE SAME TIME some 300 planes are scrambling changing their routes to find alternative landing because they were grounded "effective immediately." I would think that with a plane changing course that drastically (especially when pullin' a U-Turn in the middle of the "air-street").
It's quite amazing (Ripley's Believe it or not amazing) that this plane didn't collide with another plane or come close to colliding with others in the near vicinity as I'm sure there were quite a few of them out there and the "suicidal hijacker pilots" actually sucked as pilots..(again verifiable..). He's shown me before what the radar screens look like when the sky is full about needing nerves of steel!!
Keep up the good work Jeff!!!! Its good to know that there are others out there that like me, "Aint buyin it." Believe me, I feel just as everyone else does on this website about this "slimy ordeal" and I've managed to infuriate quite a few family members in the process (especially the ones who fought in Nam and WWII who call me a facist..) Speaking of which, Loved the story "Right-winged kook Thanksgiving" as I was "banished" from Thanksgiving dinner with my utter nonsense and crazy talk. It's amazing how quickly people step aside when you have a opposite opinion about "gub'ment issues" I agree on the Independent Committee to investigate this and 100 other things..but my question is how come with all that is being written especially on the net these days, We cannot demand and enforce answers??? I mean Im still learning (un-learning that is..) government fundamentals but with checks and balances, who da hell "polices the police" ???(gover
Take care Jeff and keep telling the truth or at least giving us the URL's to it!!!
Vince Bradley

From Moment Of Truth
Hello, Jeff...Is there anybody out there? I feel so lonely here!! GLOBAL HAWK technology is REAL people! it has been around for a long time and it isn't even that sophisticated compared to some other stuff the military has been hiding. I am no rocket scientest here, so correct me if I am wrong please! But don't cruise missiles fly using the same aerodynamic, avionics and guidance concepts and principles as planes?!
And guess what? They don't even need "ace pilots" flying them to their targets even by remote control! You cant take chances with human error here! You just punch in the 3 dimensional coordinates where they need to hit - and the computers takes over and do the rest. The course is then monitored in real time and adjusted by the computer through sattelite or AWACS. Didn't anybody see the videos from the cameras mounted on those missiles hitting there targets in Desert Storm with pinpoint precision as far back as 1990? And those missiles didn't even need VERY experienced pilots flying them.

From Jack Handy
I just wanted to throw in my $0.02 worth about the possibility of the 9/11 aircraft being flown remotly. When I was in the Navy I worked on a system called ACLS which is Automated Carrier Landing System. The system will actually land an aircraft on a carrier with no intervention by the pilot. This is not new technology either, it was developed in the 50's and I can say from personal experience that it is not a complicated system.
I found this article today that explains a new system that will replace ACLS with a GPS guided version. It would seem entirely possible that this could be used on a comercial aircraft right now, today.
From Ken
I ran across a site that has a petition to the US Senate asking for an inquiry into the events of 911.
Here is the link
Keep up the good work.
From Scott T. Nixon
I have long been suspicious of some of the government's >explanations regarding many reported "calamities," and your article >helped to clear the air on a few things regarding the September 11 >tragedies.
However, I wouldn't assign any of the blame for the planning of the terrorist activities to the U.S. government -- only for the cover-up which was to follow. But in order to assign blame, there has to be a motive. And to try and determine motive, one has to ask the question: Who has already gained the most because of what has happened, or who stands to gain the most in the future?
Surely, the Bush administration has the most to gain or lose from the crisis management in the post-terrorism aftermath. If they're perceived to be doing a good job of responding to September 11, then they have a better chance of solidifying their congressional hold in next year's off-year election, and of re-taking the White House in 2004. On the other hand, though, perceived failure of the Bush White House to respond to this crisis appropriately, and they have everything to lose. So, obviously George W. Bush is more than just a bystander sitting back and watching the investigation take place. He's got a personal stake in it probably more than any other American besides the victims of the tragedy itself as well as the soldiers deployed overseas to engage in the battle.
But who would've planned such an elaborate scheme, and for what purposes? To make a long e-mail just a bit shorter, I'll cut right to the chase and avoid all of the other potential "suspects." I think the Saudi Arabia government -- or else some very wealthy and influential Saudi members of society who might not necessarily be directly involved in the government -- were the ones who appear to have had the most motive. Remember that many Saudis consider the United States to be an occupying force of their country for more than ten years now, ever since the Persian Gulf War ended. Although publicly they express glee over the U.S.'s rout of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's army in 1991, privately they hold much disgust and anger over what they see as "creeping Western influences" being brought into their country by a permanent military presence there. And remember their abrupt refusal of the FBI's request in 1997 to be allowed to participate in the investigation into the bombing of the Khobar Towers.
But could Saudi Arabian individuals merely by themselves pull off such a technical feat? Highly unlikely, but they sure could have bankrolled the undertaking. And our government, fearful of the public recriminations which might follow the denunciation of a long-time oil supplier in the region, as well as the economic effect of another embargo, would have a strong motive to try and make it look like just a two-bit al-Qaeda operation if they felt that they could retaliate against the Saudi government in a more private manner.
So why, then, would Saudi Arabia want to publicly commit such a horrific act and then try and attribute blame to some other, unknown entity? Well, recall the Saudi's war against Saddam Hussein ten years ago. It could be very possible that the original Saudi intention was not to try and pin blame on Osama bin Laden, but on Saddam Hussein, their longtime foe. The war against Iraq ten years ago gave the Saudis a convenient pretext to clamp down harshly on human rights within their country against political dissidents. And another war against the Iraqi menace now would give them yet another pretext this time, too. Kuwait would be more than thrilled as well. But the Saudis would have had to have waited until after the 2000 elections to try and accomplish such a horrific act so as not to give Bill Clinton the opportunity to shine as the commander in chief in response, thus ensuring Gore's election last November.
Besides, the two previous attempts to try and lay blame at Hussein's feet -- the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, as well as the 1995 Oklahoma City Murrah Federal Building bombing -- both resulted in the Clinton administration swiftly identifying, prosecuting, and convicting the perpetrators of those acts without so much as a single Patriot missile being launched Saddam Hussein's way. Yet one more reason why from then on terrorism against American targets went overseas, i.e., the 1997 Khobar Towers bombing in Dahrain, Saudi Arabia, as well as the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and the U.S.S. Cole. As long as the Clinton administration was in office, they reasoned, then all attempted terrorist strikes against U.S. targets would have to be made on foreign soil.
Then came November 2000 and George W. Bush's election to the White House. Now, the Saudis believed, they at long last had a friend and an ideological soulmate who, even if he wouldn't for a moment be willingly complicit in such a terrible horror, might nevertheless play just enough of a village idiot so as to shift the blame and thrust of the investigation onto Iraq. However, things rarely go exactly according to plan, and in an investigation as large and complex as this one was, surely there would be someone who would find out information enabling investigators to, appropriately, affix blame on Osama bin Laden and his Saudi network of well-connected terrorists using Afghanistan as their terrorist training facility and playground, rather than on Iraq. Even the sophisticated effort to attribute the anthrax-laced letters to Saddam Hussein were eventually found out, and have since been traced to an Army lab in Provo, Utah of all places.
As to the alleged GPS technology, I floated that theory around for at least as far back as Commerce Secretary Ron Brown's plane mishap in 1996, possibly by rebellious anti-Clinton military types who were angry at the Clinton administration's supposed "weakening" of our military and who were emboldened by the Republican takeover of Congress just a year earlier and an expected GOP win in November, as well as by Yitzak Rabin's assassination in November 1995 which effectively ended all hopes for a lasting peace in the Middle East (peace being about the worst-case scenario imagined by the military industrial complex, save all-out nuclear war). Moreover, I suspect that similar GPS technology could have been used to down JFK, Jr.'s plane off the coast of Massachusetts, as a dampening prelude to the Democrats' morale which they would need if they were to win the White House in 2000 (not to mention knocking off a potential Democratic candidate who might some day down the road make his own White House bid).
But not everyone in the government could have been in on terrorism of such a magnitude, or even a sizable number. It would have had to have been a very small number, if any at all within the official government (but working off the payroll out of former CIA director William Casey's OSS London offices is another matter -- he of the infamous Iran-Contra scandal who conveniently got a brain tumor just two days before he was scheduled to testify before the Congress). This would explain the fourth airplane crash theory. If the fourth plane was indeed shot down by the U.S. military in order to prevent it from striking yet another target, our own government would never, ever, want to admit to such a thing in public. Nor, for that matter, would they ever want to release the cockpit voice recorder. Rather, to try and avoid giving the terrorists and their sympathizers and bankrollers around the world any peace of mind, simply portray the passengers aboard the aircraft as "heroes" who stormed the terrorists and foiled their plot in midair. This will puzzle the elaborate schemers of such an act, who never for one moment would think that any one of their loyal and programmed foot soldiers would be so incapable as to not be able to carry out their terrorism without being stopped by "self-absorbed" Americans, of all people.
To sum up, I will only say that I don't believe for one moment that the Bush administration, or anyone in it, would have conspired to commit such an evil act of horror on their fellow Americans. But someone sympathetic to the administration, even a foreigner sympathetic to the Bush administration, may have had as strong a motive as any. And no matter how uninvolved George W. Bush himself may be, I don't believe that we should ever -- ever -- reward terrorists for their acts. I, for one, won't be voting for his reelection in 2004. .
From Richard
I am a commercial pilot...and there isn't an airline pilot that I have spoken to who is buying the 9/11 story with the airliners.
Funny, 75% of them said it was as "though someone was remotely controlling them." Thought you'd find this interesting.
Also, a lot of spraying going on via chemtrails as well...
you heard it from the horse's mouth....

From Mark Tichenor
On your comments page someone did suggest that cruise missile technology could have been used to guide the "hijacked" planes. I had that idea, too and it is very SIMPLE. Since all the planes were the same class, it makes it even simpler.
You just need someone on Boeing's design team to insure that the planes are equipped with a maintenance computer jack with the right control signal lines embedded. Then a pre-programmed "cruise missile" control logic box (probably now implemented in a Palm Pilot sized box) can simply be plugged in to the maintenance port on the airplane anytime before T-DAY. The device could be activated by a radio signal or a cell phone which would take the pilot's controls off-line and take over flying the plane using data from the plane's own GPS positioning system to control its approach to the programmed target.
Keep up the good work!

Comment On The Comments Of Mr. David Foster
From One Highly-Concerned American
'9-11 Planes Not Flown Remotely'
By David Foster
Former Aviation Consultant (?)
David Foster:
"Myth: Dark Forces planted Global Hawk Remote Piloting equipment in all four aircraft and seized control shortly after takeoff."
"Reality: Had this happened, the flight crew would have radioed an emergency to Air Traffic Control."
MY COMMENT If Dark Forces can install remote control, can they not also take care of all other issues, such as "undesirable" radio alerts to the ground???
David Foster's thoughts about what a pilot "could" do if their aircraft was remotely taken over:
"4. Pilot thinks he has a runaway flight control system. He kills flight computer number 1 and goes with 2. If that fails he re- initializes the system and the bird flies in dumb mode for a short while. If that fails he re-initializes again and dumps all flight course data and reverts to dumb mode and manually enters way points. If that fails he kills primary and goes to dumb mode for rest of flight (Boeing learned from the Airbus incident. The 757/767 glass cockpit allows the pilot to have the final say) 5. If all else fails, pilot will kill the system, drop the air motor (a little emergency generator that drops into the slip stream and generates power with a small propeller and land ASAP with only partial hydraulic boost and a turn and bank. (Thank you Air Canada). 6. All 4 aircraft, assuming they were not hijacked, had sufficient time to do the above."
MY COMMENT Referring to my first comment, little or NOTHING could be done if the reconstructed systems override all pilot input. It's all chip and software "fly by wire" and "ohhh, so easy" to mess with.
David Foster: "7. There are recordings from Flight 175 of the hijacker speaking. [Seems evident]* the PIC (Pilot in Command) held down the push to talk on the yoke so somebody would know he was being hijacked. It also means he wasn't being allowed to use the radio. The hijacker was even recorded saying NO ONE WOULD BE HURT. So the PILOTS FOLLOWED POLICY and did not resist." *My note: If it "seems" to be, it is??
MY COMMENT The PIC (PILOT IN COMMAND) was the remote "joy stick" pilot and the "HIJACKER" an actor/dark force stand in. Or, do you (the readers) also believe the "smoking gun" video is real??!!
David Foster: "Myth: These poorly trained hijackers could not have flown such complicated aircraft in such a precise manner."
"Reality 1: Talk to any pilot, they flew not so precisely.
Reality 2. Flying is easy, any 16 year old can do it,and taking off is hard.
Reality 3: 16 year old Japanese kids with 2 hours training through fighter cover and flak and hit smaller targets like Aircraft Carriers and Destroyer Escorts."
MY COMMENT Remote control bypasses on board pilots, thus no issue!! But,,, since it has been raised, and since there are people who still believe passports can fly through blood, jet fuel, glass and steel then fire that "melts" steel and then travel several NY city blocks through buildings thus being: "miraculously" found; submitted to police and winding up on CNN...
...I'll give it a shot:
IGNORE: To REFUSE to pay attention to; disregard. IGNORANT: Without education or knowledge. IGNORAMUS: An ignorant person. My addition: One whom ignores (refuses) knowledge which leads to truth.... One whom WILLFULLY refuses knowledge, even when it is right before them. These words, of course, are right across from IDIOT and IDLE in the dictionary.
Highly Concerned American

9-11 Planes Not Flown Remotely
By David Foster
Former Aviation Consultant 1-4-1
While many are looking for conspiratorial aspects of the events of 9-11, one thing is relatively certain, Global Hawk Remote Piloting Technology played no role in the events. Many have written that there is over- whelming evidence that the flight controls of all 4 aircraft were seized by remote control.
Most of these writers are working with only partial information and fail to dig deeper, and are very obviously unfamiliar with how aircraft, cockpits and the Air Traffic system work.
Lets look at some myths versus reality.
Myth: Dark Forces planted Global Hawk Remote Piloting equipment in all four aircraft and seized control shortly after takeoff.
Reality: Had this happened, the flight crew would have immediately radioed an emergency to Air Traffic Control.
Myth: The Federal Government is hiding tapes of just such conversations.
Reality: How do these dark forces keep hundreds of air traffic controllers silent? Reality 2: The flight crews would have also radio their companies on their respective company frequency to request technical help on regaining control of their aircraft. Reality 3: There were recorded transmissions from all 4 aircraft, so the alleged Global Hawk did not shut off the radio's
Myth: These poorly trained hijackers could not have flown such complicated aircraft in such a precise manner.
Reality 1: Talk to any pilot, they flew not so precisely.
Reality 2. Flying is easy, any 16 year old can do it, landing and taking off is hard.
Reality 3: 16 year old Japanese kids with 2 hours training flew through fighter cover and flak and hit smaller targets like Aircraft Carriers and Destroyer Escorts.
Myth: The hijackers were poorly armed, and could have been overpowered.
Reality: It was policy before 9-11 for all flight crew to do exactly what a hijacker tells them regardless of whether a weapon is visible, implied, on not evident at all. "Flight attendant Michelle Heidenberger was on board Flight 77. She had been "trained to handle a hijacking." Exactly - her training was to cooperate in every way. The goal of the training is to do as asked, get the plane on the ground and let the authorities sort it out. No one dreamed that hijackers would use the plane as a weapon of mass destruction because it had never been done before.
Myth: The Washington Post, September 12, says this: "Aviation sources said that the plane was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm, possibly one of the hijackers. Someone even knew how to turn off the transponder, a move that is considerably less than obvious."
According to the article, the air traffic controllers "had time to warn the White House that the jet was aimed directly at the president's mansion and was traveling at a gut-wrenching speed - full throttle.
"But just as the plane seemed to be on a suicide mission into the White House, the unidentified pilot executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver.
Reality 1: The first thing you learn in flight school is how to turn on and OFF the transponder. It is in fact a simple and obviously placed device. You don't even have to turn it off, you can just set it to 1200, the code for VFR uncontrolled traffic.
Reality 2: Whoever the Washington Post's Aviation sources are, they have never flown. The pilot of the plane that hit the Pentagon, made a sloppy turn, came in too low and actually hit the ground before momentum carried the jet into the building. In fact the building suffered far less damage as a result of his poor flying.
Myth: "Hanjour had 600 hours listed in his log book, Bernard said, and instructors were surprised he was not able to fly better with the amount of experience.....Yet this is the man the FBI would have us believe flew Flight 77 into the Pentagon "with extraordinary skill." BUT HE COULD NOT EVEN FLY A CESSNA 172 !!
Reality: Once airborne it is much more difficult to keep a 172 straight and level than a Boeing 757/767. 172 bounce with mild turbulence and drift with the wind. A 400 knot 757 is very stable.
Myth: The instructor said neither man was able to pass a Stage I rating test to track and intercept. After offering some harsh words, the instructor said, the two moved on ....
Reality: Once again the writer proves their lack of knowledge of aviation. A track and intercept refers to tracking (following) an invisible VOR radio beam and intercepting an invisible point in space where two VOR signals intersect. This is strictly an instrument condition without the benefit outside visual references. Its very easy to hit a big building you can see and AIM at.
Myth: "Why would the take-off time and the passenger list be held secret? The passengers, crew, and culprits were all dead. The relatives must have known that when they heard the news of the crashes."
Reality: Airlines never release the complete passenger list until all next of kin have been notified and all the name of their dead relative to be released (which is why you see many partial lists after crashes). Why weren't the hijackers listed. Look up the passenger list published from any hijacked American Carrier since the 70's. You will not find the name of any suspected hijackers. They never publish the hijackers names. I repeat - NEVER. Why? Ask a Cop and a Lawyer.
Myth: "Boston airport officials said they did not spot the plane's course until it had crashed, and said the control tower had no unusual communications with the pilots or any crew member."
Reality: Actually, this isn't a myth. Once the airplane was above 18,000 feet, it was turned over to an in-route Center. Logan ATC didn't have the control responsibility of this aircraft.
Myth: "Less than 30 minutes into a journey that was to have taken six hours, Flight 175 took a sharp turn south into central New Jersey, near Trenton, an unusual diversion for a plane heading west, airline employees said. It then headed directly toward Manhattan.
Somewhere between Philadelphia and Newark--less than 90 minutes from Manhattan--the aircraft made its final radar contact,..."
Reality: Its not 90 minutes from Central New Jersey to the WTC its 15 when traveling at 400 knots.
Myth: "ABC-TV NEWS has learned that shortly before the plane changed directions, someone in the cockpit radioed in and asked the FAA for a new flight plan, with a final destination of Washington.
Now, THAT conversation must have been interesting! You can imagine the response of the air traffic controller: "Excuse me? Flight 93, you're in the middle of a scheduled trip to San Francisco, but you're just changed your mind and want to spend the day in Washington? Please explain."
Reality: I'll be happy to explain. At 9:37am EST all aircraft are ordered to land at earliest possible suitable site. Flight 93 in an effort NOT TO CALL ATTENTION TO ITSELF at 9:47am, requests a new Flight Plan back to the east in order to comply with the FAA request. Based on the obvious mass confusion going on in getting hundreds of flight down, Cleveland Center sees this as reasonable at first. From Cleveland, BWI is a relatively close airport in terms of commercial flight. Its a Good Alternate for a west coast bound plane ordered to land. Its not unreasonable since BWI and Reagan National are both large UNITED BASE Fields and a company pilot wants to land at a Company Airport. Pittsburgh is home to U.S Airways. Landing where you don't OWN GATES causes extra paperwork, you know, fuel, using the other guy's gates, etc.

Finally lets talk about what would happen if just such a thing did happen (remote control takeover)
1. Pilot Radio's FAA
2. Pilot Radio's Company Dispatch on Company Channel (somewhere around 129.500 to 134.500 Mhz)
3. Somebody with a scanner hears it.
4. Pilot thinks he has a runaway flight control system. He kills flight computer number 1 and goes with 2. If that fails he re-initializes the system and the bird flies in dumb mode for a short while. If that fails he re-initializes again and dumps all flight course data and reverts to dumb mode and manually enters way points. If that fails he kills primary and goes to dumb mode for rest of flight (Boeing learned from the Airbus incident. The 757/767 glass cockpit allows the pilot to have the final say)
5. If all else fails, pilot will kill the system, drop the air motor (a little emergency generator that drops into the slip stream and generates power with a small propeller and land ASAP with only partial hydraulic boost and a turn and bank. (Thank you Air Canada).
6. All 4 aircraft, assuming they were not hijacked, had sufficient time to do the above.
7. There are recordings from Flight 175 of the hijacker speaking. Seems evident the PIC (Pilot in Command) held down the push to talk on the yoke so somebody would know he was being hijacked. It also means he wasn't being allowed to use the radio. The hijacker was even recorded saying NO ONE WOULD BE HURT. So the PILOTS FOLLOWED POLICY and did not resist.
8. An 8 year old could kick in a cockpit door.
9. Whoever flew the plane that hit the south tower in the last few second, wasn't a well-trained pilot. It was a sloppy uncoordinated turn (aileron roll, no rudder) and he damn near missed the building. A trained pilot using Global Hawk would have done better. Heck, he would have had to line up better since tight turns are hard via remote control..try it some time.

From Chris L.
I have a tid bit of information regarding the remote control of aircraft I would like to share just for FYI to folks that are still uncertain.
I had a conversation with a co-workers husband, who just happens to work for the largest airline as a Fight Mechanic. We had this conversation two years ago.
He and I speaking over lunch about his job and what he did on aircraft. We were making comments on how many times we had flown. He stated that he would take flights to listen and feel the plane out after doing repairs or prior to. The conversation shifted to safety and the safeguards in place for a situation where the flight crew might become incapacitated. What he said to me was shocking enough at the time but now is even more so.
According to this Fight Mechanic, every fifth landing is controlled by the "AUTO PILOT". To test the system and make sure that it is "always" working properly. Now this system of the aircraft, is linked to the transponder system that was switched off on the fateful flights. I am uncertain of the particulars of how it all works.
Regardless, it certainly makes me, at the very least, question the facts presented. If the technology is there for a flight to land itself, when others including pilots have said "it's the landing and taking off part that is hard", then can it be that much more difficult to plug in some numbers and let the computer do the rest.
I strongly agree with the idea of an inquiry into the evidence and the true facts behind the "attacks". However, I also am a little at odds on what good it might do. We already have numerous cases of alleged and proven wrongful doings by our government, and yet nothing seems to ever be done about it. We are supposed to raise concerns and relay information to others so that they can decide and yet they just ignore it or they blow it off as hype and speculation.
I for one, concern myself with the world that I am leaving behind for my children. It bothers me that the majority of people choose to deny the reality of the world we live in today. It saddens me that I cannot speak more openly about issues with out raising suspicion or ridicule. But what good can you do when your trying to earn a living in today's economy.
I have come to realize that many people don't have the time to stop and think about it. They are so busy paying bills and supporting a life style they fail to see the writing on the wall. Or, are they are so conditioned to ignore what is happening? Hmmm...
I think that it will take much more before this nation wakes up!
Chris L.
A concerned citizen.
From Gene Bass
Jeff -
Some important issues that nobody has pointed out on your site (or rarely talks about) is that prior to 9/11 it was perfectly legal to carry knives on board a commercial airplane. Not only was it legal, but security staff rarely, if ever, measured the knives for compliance with the then existing regulations regarding maximum blade length. Even with the new security measures restricting knives, people forget the fact that knives are readily available that are "totally undetectable" by even the most sophisticated metal detectors. Making cockpit doors bullet proof may sound logical, but bullet resistant is just that. Ask anyone that wears a level III bullet proof vest what happens when a someone puts a knife into it? I hope they are making them cut resistant as well.
Along those lines, do you think they are training flight attendants in the use of fire extinguishers? Last time I checked, nobody had the ability to detect 3 gallons of flammable liquid riding in a Camelpak on someone's body. While I could go on all night with the vulnerabilities of our modern day airlines, I think my point is made.
While our National Guard troops look wonderful standing at all the airports with M-16's and 9mm handguns, I think our government is giving people a serious false sense of security. If a terrorist is willing to blow up a well protected military base, do you think they are concerned with guard troops who are half asleep from the boredom? Perhaps a better option is to put U.S. Marshalls in full uniform armed with 12 gauge stabilized bean bag rounds that have no chance of penetrating aircraft walls but a very good chance of knocking down a terrorist. Ever stand next to a stun grenade?
I suppose by making Marshalls plain clothes it's a better way to put fewer agents in the air, who would notice? The bottom line is, you don't often see a terrorist bringing a knife to a gunfight! If the government really wants to protect the flying public, they need to start implementing real solutions to serious problems.
From Simon Rika
I have just been reading the comment page discussing whether it was possible for the aircraft used on Sept 11 to have been automatically guided onto their targets. There has been mention of Global Hawk and even cruise missile type technologies, but no one has mentioned the built in capabilities of the 757-767 fleet. Here is a short quote from the Boeing homepage:
"A fully integrated flight management computer system (FMCS) provides for automatic guidance and control of the 757-200 from immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing. Linking together digital processors controlling navigation, guidance and engine thrust, the flight management system ensures that the aircraft flies the most efficient route and flight profile for reduced fuel consumption, flight time and crew workload.
The precision of global positioning satellite system (GPS) navigation, automated air traffic control functions, and advanced guidance and communications features are now available as part of the new Future Air Navigation System (FANS) flight management computer."
Now consider this; If a 757 can be programmed in normal use to navigate itself from immediately after takeoff till final aproach and even landing, then what need was there for extra military technologies? All you would need to do is fool the FMCS into thinking that the WTC was a runway, and it would line up the aircraft perfectly with that 'runway'. Also most avionics suites have easily replacable circuit boards etc to allow quick and easy maintenance. How hard would it be to sneak a different circuit board into the FMCS that would ensure that the pilots would not be able to prevent the aircraft from carrying out its mission?
Also, notice the mention of "automated air traffic control functions". What else can that mean other than the aircraft responding to ground based instructions without pilot input?
So with the technology available commercially and probably already fitted to the aircraft, the aircraft could be made to attack a target much the same as a cruise missile, and possibly even act like a ground controlled drone responding to course corrections sent by ground (or air) based systems. Could this be the reason for the unmarked white jet seen in the vicinity of the crash of Flight 93? Was this white aircraft tailing its charge, and when phone intercepts showed that the passengers were trying to do something, did it order the aircraft to crash itself?


From Alan J. Adams
I have responded to Michael Shores article below. I found a lot of things not very well thought out in the piece and had to let that be known.

Amazing 911 Mystery Puzzle

By Michael Shore
A View From Jerusalem, Israel

There are so many amazing possibilities to the true story of what really happened and who is the real mastermind behind 911, that some sort of independent peoples' committee (like that which revealed the TWA 800 coverup - ed) should be set up to investigate all the facts and questions that have never been answered since the horrific attacks on 911. This peoples' committee could be made up of intelligent independent citizens who have no connection to anyone in the U.S.government. Here is a list of some of the questions that might be answered with such an inquiry.
1. Let's start with an easy one. It was reported that an unusually large amount of thousands of put stock options were purchased on United and American airlines just before 911. You make money on put options when the price of a stock goes down. There were also reports of unusual stock transactions in Europe related to 911. The CIA supposedly monitors these kinds of unusual stock transactions so that people who have insider information can possibly be identified and apprehended as potential participants in a case like 911. To date, the identity of the person or persons, who were involved in these option and stock transactions, have not been made public. It was also reported that a $2,500,000 profit from one of the option trades has not been claimed by the person who made that trade. The FBI can easily identify the person or persons involved in these stock trades because in order to make a stock trade, you have to open an account with a stockbroker and deposit money in your account before you trade.

It would seem easy enough for the FBI and CIA to go to the stockbrokers where these trades were made and find out who made them. This is probably the closest link that can be established to someone who was involved in 911 but neither the FBI nor CIA is, apparently, pursuing this. Why?

Comment: Not necessarily true, While I am not an expert at the stock market I do know that it is possible to trade through a broker anonymously. it is also possible to do direct purchasing and selling directly through the exchange if enough money is at hand. this is a lot harder to track thean the author seems to believe.

2. It was reported that none of the names of the so-called Arab terrorists were on any of the passenger lists of any of the four planes involved in 911. Plus, the FBI and CIA with all their multi-billion dollar budgets claimed that they had no prior information that a "terrorist" act of this magnitude was about to happen. Yet within 48 hours, the FBI and CIA somehow managed to produce the pictures and names of 19 Arabs who were supposedly the "terrorists" on the planes, even though none of their names were on ANY of the passenger lists. How did they know? Just because you had an Arab name, they were able to determine that you were a "terrorist" on the planes? Plus, you may recall, when the names of the "terrorists" were first released to the press, there were reports in the media that some of the passports which the "terrorists" were using may have been stolen and the real names of the "terrorists" may have been different than the names released to the media.
Comment: It was openly stated that these may be aliases. there was never any question of that.

3. It was reported that a number of passengers were able to make cell phone calls from the planes that were supposedly hijacked. You'll see why I used the term "supposedly hijacked" in number 4. It was also reported by some sources that these reported cell calls never showed up on the cell phone company billings. Why are hijackers letting anyone on the planes make cell phone calls to people on the ground? Can you remember any other hijacked airplane incident where people were making cell phone calls? Can you easily make cell phone calls from a plane that is 35,000 feet high and hundreds of miles away from your cell phone provider?

Comment: A couple of things here..
The planes never reached a cruising altitude. they were al ldiverted only minutes Moreover anyone who has flown in the last 5 years is fully aware: a)You don't need to be in you home area to use a cell phone, and b)You can use a phone in a plane, it is common to see Cell phone us in planes even at cruising altitude.
Regarding the "Can you remember any other hijacked airplane incident where people were making cell phone calls?" when was the last time a plain was hijacked in the U.S. since cellphones were commonplace?!?
And regarding the cell phone records? Please provide a source of this data that is not an extremist/conspiracy theory/paranoia or urban legends type source... Weekly World News doesn't count.
This is all clever misdirective logic.

It was reported that the black boxes from the planes, which record conversations between the pilot and ground control, were all either destroyed or the conversations on recovered blackboxes could not be released for some rediculous reason. Number one, black boxes are built to survive the worst fiery plane crashes. By not releasing the black box communications and data, we cannot know what is really happening in the cockpit or on the aircraft and who is flying those planes. Additionally, there had to be some communication between the pilots and someone in the control towers. Yet no air traffic controller was interviewed to talk about their conversations with the pilots during the course of the "hijackings."
So, the only communication we are told about is some supposed cell phone conversations of a few passengers and a flight attendant on the planes. The only cockpit sounds that are released to the public are a few seconds of what we are told is a scuffle between passengers and hijackers in the cockpit of flight 93 that crashed in Pennsylvania. It is extremely important that any blackbox communication between the pilots and ground control be heard, if it still exists. This is probably the most important available part of the mystery in the puzzle. (To date, FBI Director Mueller refuses to release black box recordings saying they might impede the investigation and that they are too horrible for people to hear, especially familiy members. -ed)
Comment: Regarding the black boxes as far as I can recall the PA. boxes were recovered as well as at least on (or was it two?) of the NY boxes. considering the fact that the temperatures in the WTC fires reached temperatures high enough to fuse the steel fuselage of the airplane to the steel superstructure of the building, that is (at least) one tough little box. Under times of war some media privelages and rights are suspended. since the dawn of instantaneous global communication the 'loose lips sink ships' theory really no longer applies. Since the "enemy" isn't usually sending coded telegrams to leningrad anymore. They send coded messages through internet porn, and watch the foxnews channel for potential security leaks. the public does not always need to know everything. it would seem to some the press has a sort of aristocratic sense of entitlement that they have neither earned or deserve. If the information on these boxes may pose a threat to national security, then you (the press) are not the person to judge whether that is the case or not.

4. It was reported there is a new technology that currently exists called onboard the UAV 'Global Hawk' platform. This technology was referred to by President Bush immediately following the 911 tragedy. Bush said that in the future, we must strengthen the cockpit doors and further the development of a new technology whereby a pilot on the ground can take over the controls of a hijacked aircraft and fly the plane, and land the plane, at a designated airport. Bush was referring to this technology being developed sometime in the future when he knew that this technology has been under development for many years and exists now!

In April 2001, a pilotless plane flew from the US to Australia and back to the U.S. Boeing has under development a pilotless fighter plane, whose final test was set for December 2001. With these new planes, you won't have to have live fighter pilots risking their lives in war. Plus it will save huge amounts of money training fighter pilots, which currently costs two to three million dollars each pilot. So what does all this mean?

It means that the "Global Hawk" pilotless plane technology that Bush talked about already exists and could have been used in the 911 events. Guess how many planes one trained pilot can fly sitting in front of his computer screens? Four. How many planes were involved in 911? Four. And according to a conference of professional commercial airline pilots, the supposed Arab "hijackers" could not have flown those planes at all, or as well as they were flown, if they only attended the flight schools that were reported in the news.
Comment: The concept that a regular small plane pilot cannot control a jetliner is a vile falacy. all airplanes work on three axises: pitch, roll , yaw. These guys were not trying to land or accurately control these planes. they were slamming them into a target. that is surprisingly easy if you are familiar with the controls, if you can accurately land a Cessna 172 you can probably hit a giant building with a Boeing 727.

So, let's look at how all the above could might into play. None of the supposed Arab "terrorist" names were on any of the passenger flight lists and the U.S. government, within 48 hours, shows us pictures of 19 Arab "terrorists" - even though the FBI and CIA said they had no prior information that the 911 event could happen. You really don't need any live pilots in the cockpit to fly any of the four planes. They could all be flown by one very well-trained pilot using Global Hawk technology from somewhere on the ground.
Comment: So this possibly couldn't have been good intelligence work? and it was actually a little better than 72 hours as it was released in the early afternoon of 11/14... not 48 as you have implied. (per

Therefore, the 19 Arab "hijackers" didn't even need to board the planes. You didn't even need "hijackers." All you need is 'Global Hawk' technology to take over control of the aircraft from the ground. By the US government refusing to release any of the pilot-to-ground control communication from the (allegedly destroyed) blackboxes in the aircraft, the US government blacks out any conversation from the "hijacked" airline pilots possibly telling the control tower that the flight controls of their planes had been taken over.
You might ask, what happened to the fourth plane, Flight 93? According to one theory, Global Hawk technology malfunctioned on Flight 93. Somehow the pilots onboard were able to regain control of their aircraft. If Flight 93 lands safely on the ground, the secret of what was really happening on all four planes would be revealed. A back-up plan had to be implemented.
Flight 93 was then supposedly shot down by a US military jets. There are verifiable facts to substantiate this possibility. There were a number of eye witnesses who claimed to have seen flight 93 explode before it fell to the ground. These eye witnesses also saw a military jet in the sky near the crash site. Plus, there were reports of a small white private plane circling the crash site immediately after the crash - even though all private aircraft were supposed to be grounded at the time. Aircraft debris from flight 93 was strewn over an area six to eight miles from the crash site, which would be impossible,if as the government said that some passengers fought with the hijackers and intentionally crashed the plane to prevent the plane from hitting another terrorist target.Explaining how metal parts and other debris flew through the air and landed six to eight miles from the crash site, without there being an explosion in the air before the plane crashed to the ground, would be very hard for the government to do..Plus if the passengers did overtake the hijackers,why would they want to crash the plane? Couldn't the real flight 93 pilots fly the plane and land it safely?
Now comes the hero story from the government. This story is used to supply all the answers to all the questions about what happened on Flight 93 and to avoid any further inquiry by a gullible American public that accepts most anything their government officials say is truth. As George Bush, Sr. was quoted as saying: "Don't confuse people with the truth."

Comment: A couple things here. 1. It would sem that a unique flight characteristic of boeing jetliners is that when nosed down beyond a certain point they are not able to recover unless they are very high up. This plane was not at cruising altitude when this took place, infact it was very low.. 2. The author is speculating that the original pilots where in a condition that they could control the plane.
5. No US military planes were sent up to intercept any of the hijacked planes even though there were at least 30 minutes to one hour from the time it was known that the planes were hijacked. Much has been written about this by the alternatve free press on the internet. It is standard procedure for military planes to be sent up if a plane is off course and the plane is not or cannot communicate with ground control. This is just normal safety protocol because if a plane starts flying in a different flight pattern, it could crash into another plane in the sky. The big question is who gave the order to not "scramble" US military jets under these emergency and highly-dangerous conditions? If you think Bin Laden could have done this sitting in some cave in Afghanistan - think again. The only people who could have pulled this one off are high-ranking government officials who were part of the plan of the real "Mastermind" behind the attacks.
Comment: With the turmoil of that morning the entire east coast defense grid was in a shambles the planes that struck the WTC were only minutes into thier flight as was the plane that struck the Pentagon. there was little time to react, by the time the plane crashed in PA there was no way of being 100% sure of it's location, considering all the rerouted air traffic that moring. remeber how much later that plane crashed than the others.
6. So why wage a war in Afghanistan as a result of 911, costing billions of dollars? Oil, oil, oil. Unocal, a huge American oil conglomerate, along with other connected individuals, wanted to take control of six trillion dollars of oil (that's trillion, not billion) in the Caspian Sea...right near Afghanistan. Need you be reminded that the Bush's and Vice President Cheny just happen to be wealthy oil men and Cheney's Haliburton Corporation will probably be building the multi-billion dollar oil pipeline across Afghanistan that will be needed to bring much of that oil to market. It is important to be aware that the new leader of Afghanistan used to work for Unocal. Isn't that convenient?
Another important major benefactor of the war on terrorists is the war industrialists. George Bush, Jr's father happens to be the main player in the fifth largest war corporation in the World: the Carlyle Corporation. Isn't this kind of father/son relationship called nepotism? Meaning, in government language,your father or relatives benefit financially from your governmental decisions. Just a side note: up until October 2001, the Bin Laden family were major investors in the Carlyle Corpration but were forced to sell out because of the controversy their relationship generated. The Bin Ladens and the Bush's have been doing business together for many years. How interesting.

Comment: The Binladin Corporation is an international conglomerate that is ran by a very large family that Usama happens to be a disowned member of. They disavowed any association with Usama several years ago after the formation of Al Quaeda. the authors association is a great leap of logic, considering that until several months ago they also owned a large share of Snapple. Does the author believe that there is a great Snapple Tea/terrorism conspiracy. They also have real estate holdings as well as large chunks of stock in several U.S. banks and major media corporations. (Billy Carter brewed beer. That does not mean it was radioactive or had peanuts in it because he was related to Jimmy)

The American people along with the Europeans have been told that the war on terrorism is going to be a long war. What a shame George Jr's father's corporation doesn't make peace products. Then his father would have an incentive to make money from having Peace in the World instead of war.

Comment: The authors attempt at ironic humor in this statement is just that. an attempt.


Another important reason for the war in Afghanistan was to get control of the opium poppies used to make most of the heroin in the World. You would think that President Bush with the 'war on drugs' would work to stop the manufacture of heroin in Afghanistan now that the U.S. has taken over control of the country. But insteadm it has been reported that the new ruling Nothern Alliance is expanding substantially the gowing of opium poppies and the manufacture of heroin in Afghanistan. Could it be that the Bushes,Cheney and the CIA really are involved, as long-rumoured, in heavy-duty drug trafficking all over the World?
Comment: Ironically, it is winter in Afghanistan. The war Started in the fall. where is this incredible Warm moist non winter Oasis where the poppy is being grown? Afghanistan is notorious for harsh crop killing winters, this includes poppy. Ergo the new gvernment could not (at least yet) increase such poppy production. That would be like increasing corn production in Iowa in February.

7. Probably one of the biggest giveaways that Bin Laden is not the main "Mastermind" behind 911 is the fact that since 911, there have been NO additional "terrorist" acts perpetrated against, or in, the US or Europe. Not one bullet has been fired, not one bomb exploded by a Bin Laden "terrorist" in the US or Europe.
Here you have the supposed "master terrorist", Bin Laden, who supposedly committed the biggest terrorist act ever on U.S. soil and yet he has not been able to commit even a small terrorist act against his "enemy" the US since 911. Afghanistan is being bombed to smithereens and thousands of innocent defenseless Afghani men ,women and children have been killed by American forces -- shame, shame, shame. Bin Laden's Al Queda forces are being killed and destroyed and the "enemy terrorist" is not fighting back?? We are told by the U.S. government that Bin Laden has thousands of "sleeper operatives" just waiting in the wings to commit terrorist acts in the U.S. and Europe. We are shown videotapes of bin Laden that US officials say could contain hidden code words from Bin Laden that will send these "sleeper terrorists" on a killing spree in the US and Europe. But absolutely nothing is happening from the Bin Laden "terrorists" that are supposedly in the U.S. and Europe.

Comment: It has not been released how many terrorist attacks have been averted domestically. We will probably never know this. most of the Bin Laden videos shown on Al Jahzeera have NOT been shown here in the U.S. there have been several that have not. Also I am strongly reminded here of the Shoe Bomb guy who was disabled and stopped from his attempt to kill many people by his potential victims themselves. Maybe the people of the free world are aware enough of the threat now that those who would threaten are in a much more difficult position to successfully attack the U.S. people. This would explain why the attacks since have failed. Also Al Quaeda is only know to perform one or two terror attacks a year. So one cannot assume they have even tried since then.

Not only this. The so-called "mastermind terrorist", Bin Laden, that President Bush sent a huge military force to capture or kill, has amazingly disappeared. It has cost the American taxpayers billions of dollars and now Pentagon officials have said they may never be able to find Bin Laden. What gives? If you really wanted to get Bin Laden, wouldn't it have been easier and cheaper to have offered a one billion dollar reward for him and his cronies and not send any military force to Afghanistan which has killed thousands of innocent Afghani civilians, along with Taliban and American military personnel? (It is reported the US had plans to invade Afghanistan and oust the Taliban months before 911...remember the oil in the Caspian and the big pipeline project?)
Comment: In My personal opinion we should have removed the Taliban after the destruction of the statues at Bamiyan. But I digress.
Here is an experiment for the author. take a picture of someone you don't know in another major city such as Philadelphia and get thier first name. Get 150 of you friends fly to philly and find them, using nothing but that picture find that person.remember they know you are looking for them and that you want to kill them.
How long will it take you to find them? Now, lets make the city the size of california put a bunch of mountains, give that person a bunch of friends to hide him, and then we'll be nice and give you 5000 people to try to find him. How long will it take now?

Hello Americans, wake-up and stop the flag-waving already. Get yourselves a new President, Vice President, Attorney General, Secretary of State and Defense, and new leaders of the FBI and CIA. Get some people who can do a better job PROTECTING you and NOT REMOVING your civil rights and freedom. Get someone who can find Bin Laden and someone who can find the anthrax killers. Get a President who will find better ways to keep you out of wars and who works to make peace in the World - and who does not have a father who is making money from a war corporation that makes money from the wars that his son precipitates. Get a President and government officials who are honest and wouldn't start a war in Afghanistan and kill thousands of innocent Afghani civilians in order to pipe out some of the six trillion dollars of oil in the Caspian Sea, and who would gain control of the heroin/opium producing drug market in Afghanistan. Americans, please wake up now before it really is too late.

Since so much is being written on the internet about what could be the true story of the 911 tragedy and it's aftermath, it would be really great if someone organized and put together and publicized the 911 People's Investigating Committee described at the beginning of this article, with all the financing and lawyers it would take in order to do a proper and fair investigation, so that the truth can come to light and justice can be done. Maybe a case can be made and tried in a court of law and the real 911 "Mastermind" and all his accomplices can be brought to justice

Comment: The problem with the authors last two paragraphs is no lawyers or funds would be there because no one really wants to sponsor a bunch of paranoid Conspiracy theorists. Especially not now, and especially on this particular line of investigation. He can believe what he wants, and complain about the 'evil' president and his staff all he wants, but for the first time since 1993 I am proud to be a citizen of this country. and for the first time since 1993 I am also starting to bgelieve what the media is saying.
Alan J. Adams
Pasadena MD.
From Capt. David Wiebe
Dear Jeff: I would like to thank you for the quality of your site and the vast amount of material you cover. I have been intrigued with the reports that the 911 aircraft "may" have been remotely controlled. There certainly seems to be a lot of credibility in that theory given that all of the aircraft involved operate on "fly by wire" technology which would make remote intervention a possible explanation for the events of that day.
I am a commercial pilot and I regularly fly a 37 passenger turbo prop. My question is - has anyone looked into the likelihood of these alleged camel jockey hi-jackers successfully bringing a 150 ton airliner down from altitude without deystroying it? There are some very serious anomalies in that aspect alone because their is a very good chance that they would have exceeded critical mach number (speed) and put the aircraft into a dutch roll during descent. I am not a jet pilot so I really cannot comment on the intricacies of a 767 but if you know of anyone who can I would certainly appreciate hearing from them via e-mail or your site.
Michael Shore
Well, this little article generated alot of controversy which is good...because what I am saying is being voiced in a free democratic country - like the U.S.A. is supposed to be in which the people are supposedly entitled to know the truth. All we are asking for is the truth and if that truth is what George W. Bush and the Government is saying is true, or proves to be false, so be it. But what we need in order to establish "TRUTH" is a Citizens' Committe To Find The Truth, The Whole Truth And Nothing But The Truth For 911.
It is great that a group of people have the courage to put together a petition for the U.S. Senate to investigate 911 but getting the Senate to investgate 911 is like letting the Mafia investigate illegal gambling in the U.S. Remember the Kennedy assasination investigation and coverup by the government? You just can't have crooks investigating crooks or corrupted politicians investigating other corrupted politicians. That's why it's important to have an independent Citizens Committee of intelligent, dedicated,un-corrupted citizens carry out this investigation. It's our only chance to get to the truth of 911. It takes lawyers, it takes investigators, it takes organization and public relations---most of all, it takes alot of money. Does anyone out there want to put up a million dollars - and more -to get to the truth of 911?
It is essential to be remember that the U.S. government and all other governments have Disinformation Specialists. The U.S. government and all other governments have departments of 'Informaton Services' to distribute information and stories the government deems necessary to get its views and opinions other words: propaganda. The government has people writing and disseminating news releases, photos and videos to all the media--newspapers, radio, T.V. and magazines, both domestic and foreign. The government also has trained government spokespersons to answer press questions about whatever propaganda story the government is pushing. If you have a multi-billion dollar budget like the Information Service departments of the U.S., Europe, Russia, China, Japan, etc. have, that's a lot more than anybody else has who wants to be heard. So basically, governments consistantly get their propaganda, images and message into the major mass media on a daily basis.
Within each Government Information Service is a large group of professional writers and spin doctors who are trained - and whose whole careers are based on - writing "disinformation" (in other words "lies") in order to propagate what it is the "government" wants the public to believe is "true". These very talented disinformation pros will attack and discredit people who are writing the "truth" as they have found it or believe it to be. Most often, the government Disinformation Specialist will hang a LABEL on someone who is searching and asking good questions in order to find the truth. These people are labled "conspiracy theorists" nuts, cranks or whatever. And you know what? This simple little government trick has worked very well throughout the years.
The masses of people throughout the World have been conditioned to believe what they read, see or hear is true, as long as it appears in any of the controlled "normal" everyday mass media of newspapers,television, radio and magazines. The masses rarely question anything anymore. Has "Big Brother" mind control finally succeeded?
What is interesting, is how a few of the "commentors" to this article have attacked this "conspiracy" article in such an OVERLY agressive, negative and discrediting way. For example, David Foster, "fomer aviation consultant." What is that, exactly? Anyhow, David went paragraph by paragraph telling us what is "definitely" a "myth" and what is "reality". He even goes so far as telling us beyond any shadow of a doubt that any 16 year old with only two hours of training could've flown those planes on 911! Give me a break,David. Would you get on a commercial jet with a 16 year old "pilot" with only two hours of training? David makes it sound so easy to fly commercial jets - especially for "hijackers" - who could not even fly Cessnas well, and who never flew any large commmercial jet airliners before 911! Tell that to any professional commercial airline pilot, David, and see what they have to say.
We are told to believe that the "mastermind of 911" would put up several millions of dollars {my own estimate} to execute and coverup 911, and that he would gamble on the day of the terrorist act that four Arab "terrorists" who went to flight schools that teach you how to only fly small Cessna aircraft; that these four "pilots" would be depended upon and expected to fly large commercial jet aircraft for the first time ever - not to mention the added stress of a risky "hijacking" taking place and basically get one chance to hit their intended targets; and in the end commit suiicide on their first commercial jet solo flight??? Where and how long would it take to find the "right" guys to be willing and able to pull this off? Really, fellow Rense.commers, Global Hawk or some OTHER pilotless remote technology has to be considered in any investigation of what was happening on those four planes.
Dr. Bingham totally supports David's ridiculous logic and goes so far as to say that someone is committing a "sin" if they say that the "hero story" that the government put out about flight 93 is not true. That's a little heavy since we're only seeking the truth. The few seconds of what is said to be a scuffle in the cockpit between passengers and "hijackers" are the only recorded sounds that the government released on any of the planes. Communication between pilots and the control towers have never been released. Plus, the few seconds of "scuffle" sounds could easily have been made and recorded sometime after 911 to help substanciate the desired government story about what happened on flight 93. It is a possibility that simply cannot be dismissed
Alan J. Adams also intensely attacks this article, paragraph by paragraph, but even in a less credible and meaningless way.
Please note......neither of these writers had anything to say about the FACT that debris from flight 93 was found six to eight miles from the crash site which would be impossible if flight 93 did not explode BEFORE it crashed. And the FACT that eye witnesses saw the explosion in the air and a military fighter jet and a white smaller plane close to the crash site.
Neither writer has any real idea of why the alleged "master terrorist," Bin Laden, has not been able to have any of his purported worldwide "terrorists" fire one bullet on U.S. soil since 911. And to answer Alan J. Adam's comment that "it has not been released how many terrorist acts have been averted domestically" - if Bush could report any incident where government agencies have prevented any terrorist act9s) in the U.S., don't you think he would've done so in a major news conference for good publicity? There is the likely possibility that Bin Laden will probably pop up again when the time is right for the next "terrorist" xxxtravaganza, especially if President Bush wants to double the military budget (as rumored} from 343 billion dollars so his father and the Carlyle Corporation can make even more money from the wars his son perpetuates, and New World Order can declare themselves kings of the World, G-d forbid!!!
None of these writers' comments had anything to say about the FACT that the new leader of Afghanistan, Harmid Karzai, used to work for Unocal, the huge American oil conglomerate that stands to benefit the most from the six trillion dollars of oil and natural gas sitting in and around the Caspian Sea. This oil find is larger than the amount of all the oil in Saudi Arabia. Plus, today it was reported on {way to go Rense} that President Bush just appointed Zalmay Khalilzad as U.S. special envoy to Afghanistan. Zalmay just happens to be ANOTHER former Unocal employee. Come on everybody, what more do you need to know that something just ain't quite right????
Also, Alan J. Adams comment about it being winter in Afghanistan affecting opium poppy production. Let's just wait for spring and summer and see if Bush or the DEA issues any press reports that Bush has ordered the Northern Alliance to stop the growing of opium poppies and the manufacture of heroin in Afghanistan for a major victory in the "war on drugs". Ahem, I don't think so.
Come to think of it, what are these three "comment" writers doing on the site? They don't sound like your normal people who are interested in the truth or so-called "conspiracy theories". In fact, Alan even says "no one wants to sponsor a bunch of paranoid conspiracy theoists". Wouldn't that be considered an odd statement for a visitor?
So, where do we go from here? Anyone or any group want to put up the mllion dollars so an "outside" independent Citizens Committee - not "inside" U.S. government officials - can investigate 911 and get at the truth, so the real sick "mastermind" of 911 and all his accomplices can be brought to justice???
Michael Shore
117 Eliash Jerusalem,

From David Foster
Several Readers have commented that I failed to address the issue of the debris field from Flight 93, or that I do not support a "Conspiracy Theory"
For the record, my input was strictly to show that the theory of the aircraft being flown remotely was highly improbable. Before such assertions are made, one should research the systems involved, including the aircraft.
Several issues have arisen:
1. The hijackers could not have lowered the altitude of the aircraft because it would cause and over speed, and upset the aircraft.
The 757/767 models have over speed monitors that retard the throttles when the aircraft reached speeds deemed unsafe for the current configuration.
2. The aircraft has the ability to land without human intervention.
Yes at specific airports with a microwave automated landing system (localizer). The range of these systems is very short and the beam very narrow (on purpose), to avoid creating problems for other aircraft not on final.
3. There was an unidentified white jet in area of Flight 93.
OK, someone talk to the Controller Chief at Pittsburgh and find out who it was. Have the families of Flight 93 sue the chief controllers and all controllers so that they can be ordered by the courts to speak.
4. A missile was fired at Flight 93.
Ok, I don't know, but missiles leave very obvious trails. Anyone see it?
Anybody find any missile debris near the engine that fell off?
5. The FAA and FBI are hiding the tapes from all 4 flights.
Have the families from all flights sue each and every controller personally for millions, from Boston, New Hampshire, New York, Philadelphia, Newark, Cleveland, Pittsburgh and every en-route center in the Northeast . They'll talk if they know something.
The tapes are material evidence in multiple murder cases. Get local prosecutors to file murder charges against hijackers and get courts to order the release of tapes to the local DA. Get families of murder victims to get court orders for same.
6. Flight 93 came down in rural Pennsylvania. This was an act of murder. The county government has jurisdiction in a murder case, not the feds. Have the county government deny access and put all debris in evidence of local murder cases. Tell the feds to go to hell. Local government never understand they have that right. Fed cops do not outweigh local cops, its the other way around, but most folks forget that.
7. All four flights were "Heavies", capable of carrying hundreds of passengers each. Yet each flight had less than 100 on board. Airlines are not in the habit of putting big jets on low passenger routes.
What is the normal load for these flights? What is the normal load for Tuesdays? If the load was normally more than half full, why were they so light on 9-11? Sue the airlines for all records, INCLUDING ALL RESERVATION RECORDS. Were there heavy bookings and no-shows?
8. It was unlikely a hijacker got on with a bomb.
Wrong. C-4 does not set off metal detectors. There were no bomb sniffers at Logan. Before 9-11 getting C-4 on board and aircraft (except El Al) was as easy as getting your toothbrush on board.
9. Sue the airlines for all maintenance records including all documents regarding work on flight computers in last two years.
10. Cell phones won't work on aircraft.
Wrong they work better. PCS is line of sight. The higher you are the better signal you transmit to PCS towers. In the early Cellular days, the airlines didn't want them used on board because the could interfere with flight systems ( no very likely, but they did operate in the same frequency range as the transponders). The Cell companies didn't want they used in flight (FCC rule) because the stronger signal locked up too many cell sites. Many times on flights I have heard passengers cell and PCS phones ringing when they failed to turn them off.
11. "Comment: A couple things here. 1. It would seem that a unique flight characteristic of boeing jetliners is that when nosed down beyond a certain point they are not able to recover unless they are very high up."
This is true of all aircraft. You need time (altitude) to recover from a steep high speed dive. Also, big jets don't recover well from rolls over 45 degrees. They tend to stall a wing, roll over and fall down.
12. "For example, David Foster, "former aviation consultant." What is that, exactly? Anyhow, David went paragraph by paragraph telling us what is "definitely" a "myth" and what is "reality". He even goes so far as telling us beyond any shadow of a doubt that any 16 year old with only two hours of training could've flown those planes on 911! Give me a break,David. Would you get on a commercial jet with a 16 year old "pilot" with only two hours of training? David makes it sound so easy to fly commercial jets - especially for "hijackers" - who could not even fly Cessnas well, and who never flew any large commmercial jet airliners before 911! Tell that to any professional commercial airline pilot, David, and see what they have to say.
Well a 15 year old just did it in Tampa. No I would not get on a jet with a 16 year old pilot, but you won't find to many commercial pilots that will say the 757/767 is hard to fly. In fact anyone with stick and rudder time of say 20-30 hours will be able to keep it flying in normal conditions. Landing and take-offs are another matter. Oh, yes, I did speak to a number of 757/767 pilots, 9 of them.
Let me give you an example. Early in my flight training I had opportunities to fly right seat in many aircraft. I was rated single engine land - fixed (conventional), yet I flew: Lear 35 BizJet, C-130 Hercules, Beech King & Queen, Boeing 727 (Cargo), BAC-111 (Commuter Jet), and even a Stinson TriMotor (Model of 1929).
I only tell you this because flying straight and level, and making normal turns is relatively easy once you have a little knowledge and experience.
Folks, lets take a level headed approach. Could the planes been flown by remote. Yes. Is it very likely, NO! Put yourself in the crews shoes. They would have fought like hell to regain control. This includes shutting the aircraft down electrically.
It would also take a massive conspiracy in terms of number of people in on it, Controllers, Aircraft Maintenance people, and even the pilots, plus alleged fake hijackers.
It is much easier to get a group of fanatics to take over the plane, with only the hijacker/pilot knowing its a suicide mission.
Is the government hiding something? Don't they always?
David Foster
From Stacey J Hoskin
Personally, I think Mike Z. took the Blair Witch formula and took it to the next level. What else could have we expected?
This was bound to happen, sooner than later. Instant artwork, if you will. Granted, the advance preparation took some time, but once unleashed in real-time, it's effects were immediate. It's along the lines of performance art, more than anything.
A lot of mail sent to you seems to be from people up in arms over messing with their Illuminati ideologies. They should probably relax a little before they have an aneurysm. The reason they're so mad is that they were apparently 'taken' by someone who knew enough to be on the 'inside'...he knew enough to be a believer. And he turned on them. He led them on. He mocked them.
Or did he just take an 'X-Files' fuelled Illuminati knowledge base and run with it?
And sure, it'll keep Jeff and company on their toes. :) Complacency is never a good thing!
Anyway, keep up the great job. I love!

Email This Article


This Site Served by TheHostPros