- Comment
-
- Remote Control Software
-
- From Larry W
1-1-02
-
- Jeff,
-
- Everyone talks about the schooling the hijackers got
to fly those planes, but no one ever addresses a simple fact. None of them
had ever flown one of those planes before, and yet three of four were direct
hits, the fourth being an aborted mission.
-
- I remember the when I was 16, the first time I was certain
I was going to get laid. I was driving my dad's sedan, a 60 Chevy, which
I had driven many times before, and I almost wrecked it half a dozen times
just headed to the lake. Think of these young men, not much older than
I was in that 60 Chevy, flying these mammoth planes, believing they were
on their way to meet Allah.
-
- The adrenaline would be pumping, they would be shaking.
They were flying at heights they had never experienced and several times
the speed they had ever flown. They were flying over unfamiliar territory,
yet three of those plane flew directly to their targets without any problems
and at an enormous rate of speed they made the final adjustments (view
the final bank the plane that hit the second tower made as it sailed into
the target) to score direct, dead-center hits on their targets. I don't
think so.
-
- I would guess that, much like a cruise missile, those
planes were managed by remote control software operated by a VERY experienced
pilot safe and secure in a command center somewhere. I think that fact
would be born out by the information on the CVR not being released by the
Feds. It probably would reflect conversation indicating that control of
the plane had been taken from the pilots and the hijackers, and they could
not regain that control.
-
- Since the passengers on that craft attempted to apprehend
the hijackers by storming the cockpit, they probably became aware of that
fact, too, and since they had already been in contact with relatives via
cell phone, it is probably why that flight was crashed as unceremoniously
as it was.
-
- How's that for a conspiracy theory?
-
- Larry in Overland Park
- Comment
-
- From Vince Bradley
1-2-1
-
-
- Jeff, Ever since I "stumbled" onto this site,
(Praise Allah or someone for blessing me). I've never stopped coming back...this
is truly the best and "makes much more friggin sense than CNN"
information around! I've been following this whole WTC/Afghanistan 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 ..talk about needing nerves of steel!!
-
- Keep up the good work Jeff!!!! Its good to know that
there are others out there that like me, "Aint buyin it." Believe
me, I feel just as everyone else does on this website about this "slimy
ordeal" and I've managed to infuriate quite a few family members in
the process (especially the ones who fought in Nam and WWII who call me
a 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
Comment
-
- From Moment Of Truth
telrayes@hotmail.com
1-2-2
-
-
- Hello, Jeff...Is there anybody out there? I feel so lonely
here!! GLOBAL HAWK technology is REAL people! it has been around for a
long time and it isn't even that sophisticated compared to some other stuff
the military has been hiding. I am no rocket 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.
Comment
-
- From Jack Handy
1-2-2
-
- I just wanted to throw in my $0.02 worth about the possibility
of the 9/11 aircraft being flown 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 http://www.flagshipnews.com/archives/june072001_6.shtml
that explains a new system that will replace ACLS with a GPS guided version.
It would seem entirely possible that this could be used on a comercial
aircraft right now, today.
-
-
- Comment
-
- From Ken
1-2-2
-
- I ran across a site that has a petition to the US Senate
asking for an inquiry into the events of 911.
-
- Here is the link http://www.petitiononline.com/11601TFS/petition.html
-
- Keep up the good work.
Ken
-
-
- Comment
-
- From Scott T. Nixon
1-3-1
-
- I have long been suspicious of some of the government's
>explanations regarding many reported "calamities," and your
article >helped to clear the air on a few things regarding the September
11 >tragedies.
-
- However, I wouldn't assign any of the blame for the planning
of the terrorist activities to the U.S. government -- only for the cover-up
which was to follow. But in order to assign blame, there has to be a motive.
And to try and determine motive, one has to ask the question: Who has already
gained the most because of what has happened, or who stands to gain the
most in the future?
-
- Surely, the Bush administration has the most to gain
or lose from the crisis management in the post-terrorism aftermath. If
they're perceived to be doing a good job of responding to September 11,
then they have a better chance of solidifying their congressional hold
in next year's off-year election, and of re-taking the White House in 2004.
On the other hand, though, perceived failure of the Bush White House to
respond to this crisis appropriately, and they have everything to lose.
So, obviously George W. Bush is more than just a bystander sitting back
and watching the investigation take place. He's got a personal stake in
it probably more than any other American besides the victims of the tragedy
itself as well as the soldiers deployed overseas to engage in the battle.
-
- But who would've planned such an elaborate scheme, and
for what purposes? To make a long e-mail just a bit shorter, I'll cut right
to the chase and avoid all of the other potential "suspects."
I think the Saudi Arabia government -- or else some very wealthy and influential
Saudi members of society who might not necessarily be directly involved
in the government -- were the ones who appear to have had the most motive.
Remember that many Saudis consider the United States to be an occupying
force of their country for more than ten years now, ever since the Persian
Gulf War ended. Although publicly they express glee over the U.S.'s rout
of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's army in 1991, privately they hold much
disgust and anger over what they see as "creeping Western influences"
being brought into their country by a permanent military presence there.
And remember their abrupt refusal of the FBI's request in 1997 to be allowed
to participate in the investigation into the bombing of the Khobar Towers.
-
- But could Saudi Arabian individuals merely by themselves
pull off such a technical feat? Highly unlikely, but they sure could have
bankrolled the undertaking. And our government, fearful of the public recriminations
which might follow the denunciation of a long-time oil supplier in the
region, as well as the economic effect of another embargo, would have a
strong motive to try and make it look like just a two-bit al-Qaeda operation
if they felt that they could retaliate against the Saudi government in
a more private manner.
-
- So why, then, would Saudi Arabia want to publicly commit
such a horrific act and then try and attribute blame to some other, unknown
entity? Well, recall the Saudi's war against Saddam Hussein ten years ago.
It could be very possible that the original Saudi intention was not to
try and pin blame on Osama bin Laden, but on Saddam Hussein, their longtime
foe. The war against Iraq ten years ago gave the Saudis a convenient pretext
to clamp down harshly on human rights within their country against political
dissidents. And another war against the Iraqi menace now would give them
yet another pretext this time, too. Kuwait would be more than thrilled
as well. But the Saudis would have had to have waited until after the 2000
elections to try and accomplish such a horrific act so as not to give Bill
Clinton the opportunity to shine as the commander in chief in response,
thus ensuring Gore's election last November.
-
- Besides, the two previous attempts to try and lay blame
at Hussein's feet -- the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, as well as the
1995 Oklahoma City Murrah Federal Building bombing -- both resulted in
the Clinton administration swiftly identifying, prosecuting, and convicting
the perpetrators of those acts without so much as a single Patriot missile
being launched Saddam Hussein's way. Yet one more reason why from then
on terrorism against American targets went overseas, i.e., the 1997 Khobar
Towers bombing in Dahrain, Saudi Arabia, as well as the bombings of the
U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and the U.S.S. Cole. As long as the
Clinton administration was in office, they reasoned, then all attempted
terrorist strikes against U.S. targets would have to be made on foreign
soil.
-
- Then came November 2000 and George W. Bush's election
to the White House. Now, the Saudis believed, they at long last had a friend
and an ideological 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. .
-
-
-
- Comment
-
- From Richard
1-3-2
-
- I am a commercial pilot...and there isn't an airline
pilot that I have spoken to who is buying the 9/11 story with the airliners.
-
- Funny, 75% of them said it was as "though someone
was remotely controlling them." Thought you'd find this interesting.
-
- Also, a lot of spraying going on via chemtrails as well...
-
- you heard it from the horse's mouth....
Comment
-
- From Mark Tichenor
1-3-1
-
- On your comments page someone did suggest that cruise
missile technology could have been used to guide the "hijacked"
planes. I had that idea, too and it is very SIMPLE. Since all the planes
were the same class, it makes it even simpler.
-
- You just need someone on Boeing's design team to insure
that the planes are equipped with a maintenance computer jack with the
right control signal lines embedded. Then a pre-programmed "cruise
missile" control logic box (probably now implemented in a Palm Pilot
sized box) can simply be plugged in to the maintenance port on the airplane
anytime before T-DAY. The device could be activated by a radio signal or
a cell phone which would take the pilot's controls off-line and take over
flying the plane using data from the plane's own GPS positioning system
to control its approach to the programmed target.
-
- Keep up the good work!
- Mark
-
-
Comment On The Comments Of Mr. David Foster
-
- From One Highly-Concerned American
1-4-2
-
-
- '9-11 Planes Not Flown Remotely'
By David Foster
Former Aviation Consultant (?)
drfoster@pdq.net
-
- 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.
-
- Signed,
Highly Concerned American
-
Comment
-
- 9-11 Planes Not Flown Remotely
-
- By David Foster
Former Aviation Consultant
drfoster@pdq.net 1-4-1
-
- While many are looking for conspiratorial aspects of
the events of 9-11, one thing is relatively certain, Global Hawk Remote
Piloting Technology played no role in the events. Many have written that
there is over- whelming evidence that the flight controls of all 4 aircraft
were seized by remote control.
-
- Most of these writers are working with only partial information
and fail to dig deeper, and are very obviously unfamiliar with how aircraft,
cockpits and the Air Traffic system work.
-
- Lets look at some myths versus reality.
-
-
- Myth: Dark Forces planted Global Hawk Remote Piloting
equipment in all four aircraft and seized control shortly after takeoff.
-
- Reality: Had this happened, the flight crew would have
immediately radioed an emergency to Air Traffic Control.
-
-
- Myth: The Federal Government is hiding tapes of just
such conversations.
-
- Reality: How do these dark forces keep hundreds of air
traffic controllers silent? Reality 2: The flight crews would have also
radio their companies on their respective company frequency to request
technical help on regaining control of their aircraft. Reality 3: There
were recorded transmissions from all 4 aircraft, so the alleged Global
Hawk did not shut off the radio's
-
-
- Myth: These poorly trained hijackers could not have flown
such complicated aircraft in such a precise manner.
-
- Reality 1: Talk to any pilot, they flew not so precisely.
-
- Reality 2. Flying is easy, any 16 year old can do it,
landing and taking off is hard.
-
- Reality 3: 16 year old Japanese kids with 2 hours training
flew through fighter cover and flak and hit smaller targets like Aircraft
Carriers and Destroyer Escorts.
-
-
- Myth: The hijackers were poorly armed, and could have
been overpowered.
-
- Reality: It was policy before 9-11 for all flight crew
to do exactly what a hijacker tells them regardless of whether a weapon
is visible, implied, on not evident at all. "Flight attendant Michelle
Heidenberger was on board Flight 77. She had been "trained to handle
a hijacking." Exactly - her training was to cooperate in every way.
The goal of the training is to do as asked, get the plane on the ground
and let the authorities sort it out. No one dreamed that hijackers would
use the plane as a weapon of mass destruction because it had never been
done before.
-
-
- Myth: The Washington Post, September 12, says this: "Aviation
sources said that the plane was flown with extraordinary skill, making
it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm, possibly one of
the hijackers. Someone even knew how to turn off the transponder, a move
that is considerably less than obvious."
-
- According to the article, the air traffic controllers
"had time to warn the White House that the jet was aimed directly
at the president's mansion and was traveling at a gut-wrenching speed -
full throttle.
-
- "But just as the plane seemed to be on a suicide
mission into the White House, the unidentified pilot executed a pivot so
tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver.
-
- Reality 1: The first thing you learn in flight school
is how to turn on and OFF the transponder. It is in fact a simple and obviously
placed device. You don't even have to turn it off, you can just set it
to 1200, the code for VFR uncontrolled traffic.
-
- Reality 2: Whoever the Washington Post's Aviation sources
are, they have never flown. The pilot of the plane that hit the Pentagon,
made a sloppy turn, came in too low and actually hit the ground before
momentum carried the jet into the building. In fact the building suffered
far less damage as a result of his poor flying.
-
-
- Myth: "Hanjour had 600 hours listed in his log book,
Bernard said, and instructors were surprised he was not able to fly better
with the amount of experience.....Yet this is the man the FBI would have
us believe flew Flight 77 into the Pentagon "with extraordinary skill."
BUT HE COULD NOT EVEN FLY A CESSNA 172 !!
-
- Reality: Once airborne it is much more difficult to keep
a 172 straight and level than a Boeing 757/767. 172 bounce with mild turbulence
and drift with the wind. A 400 knot 757 is very stable.
-
-
- Myth: The instructor said neither man was able to pass
a Stage I rating test to track and intercept. After offering some harsh
words, the instructor said, the two moved on ....
-
- Reality: Once again the writer proves their lack of knowledge
of aviation. A track and intercept refers to tracking (following) an invisible
VOR radio beam and intercepting an invisible point in space where two VOR
signals intersect. This is strictly an instrument condition without the
benefit outside visual references. Its very easy to hit a big building
you can see and AIM at.
-
-
- Myth: "Why would the take-off time and the passenger
list be held secret? The passengers, crew, and culprits were all dead.
The relatives must have known that when they heard the news of the crashes."
-
- Reality: Airlines never release the complete passenger
list until all next of kin have been notified and all the name of their
dead relative to be released (which is why you see many partial lists after
crashes). Why weren't the hijackers listed. Look up the passenger list
published from any hijacked American Carrier since the 70's. You will not
find the name of any suspected hijackers. They never publish the hijackers
names. I repeat - NEVER. Why? Ask a Cop and a Lawyer.
-
-
- Myth: "Boston airport officials said they did not
spot the plane's course until it had crashed, and said the control tower
had no unusual communications with the pilots or any crew member."
-
- Reality: Actually, this isn't a myth. Once the airplane
was above 18,000 feet, it was turned over to an in-route Center. Logan
ATC didn't have the control responsibility of this aircraft.
-
-
- Myth: "Less than 30 minutes into a journey that
was to have taken six hours, Flight 175 took a sharp turn south into central
New Jersey, near Trenton, an unusual diversion for a plane heading west,
airline employees said. It then headed directly toward Manhattan.
-
- Somewhere between Philadelphia and Newark--less than
90 minutes from Manhattan--the aircraft made its final radar contact,..."
-
- Reality: Its not 90 minutes from Central New Jersey to
the WTC its 15 when traveling at 400 knots.
-
-
- Myth: "ABC-TV NEWS has learned that shortly before
the plane changed directions, someone in the cockpit radioed in and asked
the FAA for a new flight plan, with a final destination of Washington.
-
- Now, THAT conversation must have been interesting! You
can imagine the response of the air traffic controller: "Excuse me?
Flight 93, you're in the middle of a scheduled trip to San Francisco, but
you're just changed your mind and want to spend the day in Washington?
Please explain."
-
- Reality: I'll be happy to explain. At 9:37am EST all
aircraft are ordered to land at earliest possible suitable site. Flight
93 in an effort NOT TO CALL ATTENTION TO ITSELF at 9:47am, requests a new
Flight Plan back to the east in order to comply with the FAA request. Based
on the obvious mass confusion going on in getting hundreds of flight down,
Cleveland Center sees this as reasonable at first. From Cleveland, BWI
is a relatively close airport in terms of commercial flight. Its a Good
Alternate for a west coast bound plane ordered to land. Its not unreasonable
since BWI and Reagan National are both large UNITED BASE Fields and a company
pilot wants to land at a Company Airport. Pittsburgh is home to U.S Airways.
Landing where you don't OWN GATES causes extra paperwork, you know, fuel,
using the other guy's gates, etc.
Finally lets talk about what would happen if just such a thing did happen
(remote control takeover)
-
- 1. Pilot Radio's FAA
-
- 2. Pilot Radio's Company Dispatch on Company Channel
(somewhere around 129.500 to 134.500 Mhz)
-
- 3. Somebody with a scanner hears it.
-
- 4. Pilot thinks he has a runaway flight control system.
He kills flight computer number 1 and goes with 2. If that fails he re-initializes
the system and the bird flies in dumb mode for a short while. If that fails
he re-initializes again and dumps all flight course data and reverts to
dumb mode and manually enters way points. If that fails he kills primary
and goes to dumb mode for rest of flight (Boeing learned from the Airbus
incident. The 757/767 glass cockpit allows the pilot to have the final
say)
-
- 5. If all else fails, pilot will kill the system, drop
the air motor (a little emergency generator that drops into the slip stream
and generates power with a small propeller and land ASAP with only partial
hydraulic boost and a turn and bank. (Thank you Air Canada).
-
- 6. All 4 aircraft, assuming they were not hijacked, had
sufficient time to do the above.
-
- 7. There are recordings from Flight 175 of the hijacker
speaking. Seems evident the PIC (Pilot in Command) held down the push to
talk on the yoke so somebody would know he was being hijacked. It also
means he wasn't being allowed to use the radio. The hijacker was even recorded
saying NO ONE WOULD BE HURT. So the PILOTS FOLLOWED POLICY and did not
resist.
-
- 8. An 8 year old could kick in a cockpit door.
-
- 9. Whoever flew the plane that hit the south tower in
the last few second, wasn't a well-trained pilot. It was a sloppy uncoordinated
turn (aileron roll, no rudder) and he damn near missed the building. A
trained pilot using Global Hawk would have done better. Heck, he would
have had to line up better since tight turns are hard via remote control..try
it some time.
-
Comment
-
- From Chris L.
1-4-2
-
- Jeff,
-
- I have a 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!
-
- Sincerely,
- Chris L.
- A concerned citizen.
-
-
- Comment
-
- From Gene Bass
1-4-2
-
- Jeff -
-
- Some important issues that nobody has pointed out on
your site (or rarely talks about) is that prior to 9/11 it was perfectly
legal to carry knives on board a commercial airplane. Not only was it legal,
but security staff rarely, if ever, measured the knives for compliance
with the then existing regulations regarding maximum blade length. Even
with the new security measures restricting knives, people forget the fact
that knives are readily available that are "totally undetectable"
by even the most sophisticated metal detectors. Making cockpit doors bullet
proof may sound logical, but bullet resistant is just that. Ask anyone
that wears a level III bullet proof vest what happens when a someone puts
a knife into it? I hope they are making them cut resistant as well.
-
- Along those lines, do you think they are training flight
attendants in the use of fire extinguishers? Last time I checked, nobody
had the ability to detect 3 gallons of flammable liquid riding in a Camelpak
on someone's body. While I could go on all night with the vulnerabilities
of our modern day airlines, I think my point is made.
-
- While our National Guard troops look wonderful standing
at all the airports with M-16's and 9mm handguns, I think our government
is giving people a serious false sense of security. If a terrorist is willing
to blow up a well protected military base, do you think they are concerned
with guard troops who are half asleep from the boredom? Perhaps a better
option is to put U.S. 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.
-
-
-
- Comment
-
- From Simon Rika
SiCo3D@orcon.net.nz
1-4-2
-
- I have just been reading the comment page discussing
whether it was possible for the aircraft used on Sept 11 to have been automatically
guided onto their targets. There has been mention of Global Hawk and even
cruise missile type technologies, but no one has mentioned the built in
capabilities of the 757-767 fleet. Here is a short quote from the Boeing
homepage:
-
- "A fully integrated flight management computer system
(FMCS) provides for automatic guidance and control of the 757-200 from
immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing. Linking together
digital processors controlling navigation, guidance and engine thrust,
the flight management system ensures that the aircraft flies the most efficient
route and flight profile for reduced fuel consumption, flight time and
crew workload.
-
- The precision of global positioning satellite system
(GPS) navigation, automated air traffic control functions, and advanced
guidance and communications features are now available as part of the new
Future Air Navigation System (FANS) flight management computer." http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757-200/background.html
-
- Now 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?
-
- Comment
From Alan J. Adams
aladams@teksystems.com
1-4-1
-
- Jeff,
-
- 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
1-1-2
- 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 msnbc.com)
- ___
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.
-
-
-
- Comment
-
- From Capt. David Wiebe
djwiebe12@uniserve.com
1-6-2
-
- 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.
-
-
-
- Comment
-
- Michael Shore
m3636s@yahoo.com
1-6-2
-
-
- 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 across....in 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 Rense.com {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 Rense.com site? They don't sound like your normal
Rense.com 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 Rense.com 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,
Israel
-
- Comment
-
- From David Foster
drfoster@pdq.net
1-7-2
-
- 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
-
-
-
- Comment
-
- From Stacey J Hoskin
stace@sk.sympatico.ca
1-8-2
-
- 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 rense.com!
|
