- There were no "suicide" pilots on those September
11 jets. The jets were controlled by advanced robotics and remote-control
technology, not hijackers. Fantastic? Before I explain, read about the
history-making robot/remote-controlled jet plane.
-
-
- GLOBAL HAWK: NOW YOU HAVE IT...
-
- The Northrop Grumman Global Hawk is a robotized American
military jet that has a wingspan of a Boeing 737. The excerpts below were
taken from an article entitled: "Robot plane flies Pacific unmanned,"
which appeared in the April 24, 2001 edition of Britain's International
Television News:
-
- "The aircraft essentially flies itself, right from
takeoff, right through to landing, and even taxiing off the runway,"
according to the Australian Global Hawk manager Rod Smith.
-
- A robot plane has made aviation history by becoming the
first unmanned aircraft to fly across the Pacific Ocean.
-
- The American high-altitude Global Hawk spy plane made
flew (sic) across the ocean to Australia, defence officials confirmed.
-
- The Global Hawk, a jet-powered aircraft with a wingspan
equivalent to a Boeing 737 [NOTE: two of the aircraft involved in the 911
crashes were Boeing 757s, two were Boeing 767s] flew from Edwards Air Force
Base in California and landed late on Monday at the Royal Australian Air
Force base at Edinburgh, in South Australia state. . . .
-
- It flies along a pre-programmed flight path, but a pilot
monitors the aircraft during its flight via a sensor suite which provides
infra-red and visual images. (http://www.itn.co.uk/news/20010424/world/05robotplane.shtm)
-
-
- ... AND NOW YOU DON'T -
-
- Then, on September 20, 2001, The Economist published
comments from a former boss of British Airways, Robert Ayling:
-
- On autopilot into the future "Robert Ayling, a former
boss of British Airways, suggested in The Financial Times this week that
aircraft could be commandeered from the ground and controlled remotely
in the event of a hijack ... (as quoted by KC <kettererkey@home.com>
on alt.current-events.wtc explosion).
-
- So, even though the ITN article was published on April
24, in September, after the 911 crashes, Mr. Ayling is PRETENDING Global
Hawk technology is a thing of the future.
-
-
- THEN THE NEW YORK TIMES RAN THIS:
-
- . . . In addition, the president [President Bush] said
he would give grants to airlines to allow them to develop stronger cockpit
doors and transponders that cannot be switched off from the cockpit. Government
grants would also be available to pay for video monitors that would be
placed in the cockpit to alert pilots to trouble in the cabin; and new
technology, probably far in the future, allowing air traffic controllers
to land distressed planes by remote control. ("Bush to Increase Federal
Role in Security at Airports," The New York Times, Sept. 28, 2001;
emphasis added.)
-
- So, then, right after Operation 911 was pulled off, two
men of world influence were pretending such technology had not yet been
perfected. That was dishonest. And revealing.
-
- Run a Google Advanced Search on the phrase "Global
Hawk," and you will find additional information. Meanwhile, I have
attached the text of the ITN article at the end of this piece.
-
- Technically speaking, we could have a "suicidal"
airplane fly into a building without a suicidal pilot. Robotics and remote
control technology has developed to the point that a high-altitude Global
Hawk (or a low-altitude Tomahawk cruise missile) can be guided into collision
with a target without a Kamikaze pilot in the cockpit.
-
- America And Its Allies Would Never Attack America! Now,
hold it there! This is US military technology. We all surely know that
the US and its allies would not conspire to attack America! Or do we?
-
- The Army's School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS
) thinks Israel is capable of doing exactly that. On September 10, 2001,
The Washington Times ran a front page story which quoted SAMS officers:
-
-
- "Of the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service,
the SAMS officers say: 'Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability
to target US forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act.'"
("US troops would enforce peace under Army study," The Washington
Times, Sept.. 10, 2001, pg. A1, 9.) Just 24 hours after this story appeared,
the Pentagon was hit and the Arabs were being blamed.
-
- These SAMS officers are obviously interested in protecting
their country, but not all Americans are. Some are traitors and pay allegiance
to Israel. Recall the June 8, 1967, Israeli attack on the USS Liberty,
and American complicity in the attack.
-
- During the Six Day War, the Liberty, an American intelligence
gathering ship, was sailing in international waters. Israeli aircraft
and torpedo boats attacked it for 75 minutes. http://ennes.org/jim/ussliberty/
-
-
- When four US fighter jets from a nearby aircraft carrier
came to protect the Liberty, US Defense Secretary Robert McNamara ordered
the jets NOT to come to the Liberty's aid, and allowed the Israeli attack
to continue. Thirty-fourAmericans were killed and 171 wounded. http://ennes.org/jim/ussliberty/chapter6.htm
-
- Now consider Operation Northwoods: In 1962, US military
leaders designed a plan to conduct terrorist acts against Americans and
blame Cuba, to create popular sentiment for invasion of that country. Operation
Northwoods included: * Plans to shoot down a CIA plane designed to replicate
a passenger flight and announce that Cuban forces shot it down.
-
- * Creation of military casualties by blowing up a US
ship in Guantanamo Bay and blaming Cuba: "....casualty lists in the
US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation,"
and
-
- * Development of a terror campaign in the Miami and Washington,
DC. Information on Operation Northwoods can be found in James Bamford's
Body of Secrets, (Doubleday, 2001), and at the following URLs.
-
-
- http://www.baltimoresun.com/bal-te.md.nsa24apr24.story http://www.earlham.edu/archive/opf-l/May-2001/msg00062.html
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/
-
- In other words, US allies and people within the US military
establishment are not opposed to killing American servicemen and civilians,
given the right goal.
-
-
- WHY TAKE CHANCES?
-
- Put yourself in the shoes of the masterminds of Operation
911. The attacks had to be tightly coordinated. Four jets took off within
15 minutes of each other at Boston, Dulles, and Newark airports, and roughly
two hours later, it was over. The masterminds couldn't afford to take
needless chances.
-
- Years ago I saw a local TV news reporter interview a
New York mugger about the occupational hazards of his trade. "It's
a very, very dangerous trade," the mugger informed the interviewer.
"Some of these people are crazy! They fight back! You can get hurt!"
-
- If a freelance New York mugger realized the unpredictable
nature of human behavior, surely the pros who pulled this job off must
have known the same truth. Yet we are asked to believe that the culprits
took four jet airliners, with four sets of crew and four sets of passengers
-- armed with (depending on the news reports you read) "knives,"
"plastic knives" and box cutters. Given the crazy and unpredictable
nature of humans, why would they try this bold plan when they were so poorly
armed?
-
- A lady's handbag -- given the weight of the contents
most women insist on packing -- is an awesome weapon. I know, I have used
mine in self defense. Are we to believe that none of the women had the
testosterone to knock those flimsy little weapons out of the hijackers'
hands? And what of the briefcases most men carry? Thrown, those briefcase
can be potent weapons. Your ordinary every-day New York mugger would never
take the chances that our culprits took.
-
- Flight attendant Michelle Heidenberger was on board Flight
77. She had been "trained to handle a hijacking. She knew not to
let anyone in the cockpit. She knew to tell the hijacker that she didn't
have a key and would have to call the pilots. None of her training mattered."
( "On flight 77: 'Our Plane Is Being Hijacked'," The Washington
Post, September 12, 2001, pgs. A 1, 11.)
-
- That's right, The Washington Post for once is telling
the whole truth. Heidenberger's training didn't matter, the pilots' training
didn't matter, the ladies handbags didn't matter, the mens' briefcases
didn't matter. The masterminds of Operation 911 knew that whatever happened
aboard those flights, the control of the planes was in their hands. Even
if the crew and passengers fought back, my hypothesis is that they *could
not* have regained control of the planes, for the planes were being controlled
by Global Hawk technology.
-
-
- FLIGHT 77 - "The Plane Was Flown With Extraordinary
Skill"
-
- Once again: Operation 911 demanded that the attacks
be tightly coordinated. Four jets took off within 15 minutes of each
other at Boston, Dulles, and Newark airports, and roughly two hours later,
it was over. If we are to believe the story we are being told, the masterminds
needed, at an absolute minimum, pilots who could actually fly the planes
and who could arrive at the right place at the right time.
-
- American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757, took off from
Dulles Airport in northern Virginia at 8:10 a.m. and crashed into the Pentagon
at 9:40 a.m. The Washington Post, September 12, says this: "Aviation
sources said that the plane was flown with extraordinary skill, making
it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm, possibly one of
the hijackers. Someone even knew how to turn off the transponder, a move
that is considerably less than obvious."
-
- According to the article, the air traffic controllers
"had time to warn the White House that the jet was aimed directly
at the president's mansion and was traveling at a gut-wrenching speed--full
throttle.
-
- "But just as the plane seemed to be on a suicide
mission into the White House, the unidentified pilot executed a pivot so
tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver. The plane
circled 270 degrees from the right to approach the Pentagon from the west,
whereupon Flight 77 fell below radar level, vanishing from controller's
screens, the sources said." ("On Flight 77: 'Our Plane Is Being
Hijacked'," The Washington Post, September 12, 2001, pgs. 1 &
11)
-
-
- MEET ACE SUICIDE PILOT HANI HANJOUR
-
- Let's look at what we know about the alleged suicide
pilot of American Airlines Flight 77, Hani Hanjour. According to press
reports, Hanjour had used Bowie's Maryland Freeway Airport three times
since mid-August as he attempted to get permission to use one of the airport's
planes. This from The Prince George's Journal [Maryland] September 18,
2001:
-
- Marcel Bernard, the chief flight instructor at the airport,
said the man named Hani Hanjour went into the air in a Cessna 172 with
instructors from the airport three times beginning the second week of August
and had hoped to rent a plane from the airport.
-
- According to published reports, law enforcement sources
say Hanjour, in his mid-twenties, is suspected of crashing the American
Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon. . . .
-
- Hanjour had his pilot's license, said Bernard, but needed
what is called a 'check-out' done by the airport to gauge a pilot's skills
before he or she is able to rent a plane at Freeway Airport which runs
parallel to Route 50.
-
- Instructors at the school told Bernard that after three
times in the air, they still felt he was unable to fly solo and that Hanjour
seemed disappointed ...
-
- ... Published reports said Hanjour obtained his pilot's
license in April of 1999, but it expired six months later because he did
not complete a required medical exam. He also was trained for a few months
at a private school in Scottsdale, Ariz., in 1996, but did not finish the
course because instructors felt he was not capable.
-
- Hanjour had 600 hours listed in his log book, Bernard
said, and instructors were surprised he was not able to fly better with
the amount of experience .S Pete Goulatta, a special agent and spokesman
for the FBI, said it is an on-going criminal investigation and he could
not comment. (pg. 1.)
-
- If you were the mastermind who planned this breathtaking
terrorist attack, would you trust a man who took 600 hours of flying time
and still could not do the job? Who was paying for Hanjour's lessons,
and why?
-
- Yet this is the man the FBI would have us believe flew
Flight 77 into the Pentagon "with extraordinary skill." BUY
HE COULD NOT EVEN FLY A CESSNA 172 !!
-
- Yes, maneuvering a Boeing 757 into a 270 degree turn
under tense conditions (remember, the culprits were outmanned and had crude,
non lethal weapons) demanded the skill of a fighter pilot. But why would
those bad, bad, Muslims want to do such a thing?
-
- By shifting the plane's position so radically, Flight
77 managed to hit the side of the Pentagon *directly opposite* the side
on which the offices of the Secretary of Defense and Joint Chief of Staff
were located. (Coincidentally, Flight 77 hit the offices of Army operations
(US News and World Report, Sept. 14, 2001, pg. 25. Recall, it was the Army
that warned of the possibility that Israel's Mossad might make a terror
attack against the US.) The masterminds of Operation 911 were prepared
to sacrifice the rank and file, but carefully avoided touching a hair on
the head of the brass.
-
- It reminds one of Operation Northwoods, doesn't it?
Remember the rank and file sailors who were to be sacrificed on a US Naval
vessel in Guantanamo Bay, in order to justify war with Cuba? No, neither
Hanjour nor any other Muslim suicide pilot was at the controls of this
plane. It had been fitted with Global Hawk technology and was being remotely
controlled.
-
-
- LET'S MEET THE OTHER ACES
-
- According to The Washington Post of 10-19-01: "Hijack
Suspects Tried Many Flight Schools"
-
- Mohammed Atta, alleged hijacker of Flight 11, and Marwanal-Al-Shehhi,
alleged hijacker of Flight 175, both of which crashed into the World Trade
Center, attended hundreds of hours of lessons at Huffman Aviation, a flight
school in Venice, Florida. They also took lessons at Jones Aviation Flying
Service Inc., which operates from the Sarasota Bradenton International
Airport. According to the Post, neither experience "worked out."
-
- A flight instructor at Jones who asked not be identified
said Atta and Al Shehhi arrived in September or October and asked to be
given flight training. Atta, the instructor said, was particularly difficult.
"He would not look at your face," the instructor said. "When
you talked to him, he could not look you in the eye. His attention span
was very short."
-
- The instructor said neither man was able to pass a Stage
I rating test to track and intercept. After offering some harsh words,
the instructor said, the two moved on .... "We didn't kick them out,
but they didn't live up to our standards." (page A 15.)
-
- Or try The Washington Post 1-24-01: "They were
dumb and dumber."
-
- Alleged hijackers Nawaq Alhazmi (Flight 77), Khaid Al-Midhar
(Flight 77) and Hani Hanjour (Flight 77) all spent time in San Diego.
"Two of the men, Alhazmi and Al-Midhar, also briefly attended a local
fight school, but they were dropped because of their limited English and
incompetence at the controls....
-
- Last spring, two of the men visited Montgomery Field,
a community airport ... and sought flying lessons. They spoke to instructors
at Sorbi's Flying Club, which allowed them to take only two lessons before
advising them to quit.
-
- "Their English was horrible, and their mechanical
skills were even worse," said an instructor, who asked not to be named.
"It was like they had hardly even ever driven a car ..."
-
- "They seemed like nice guys," the instructor
said, "but in the plane, they were dumb and dumber." ("San
Diegans See Area as Likely Target," The Washington Post, September
24, 2001, pg. A7.)
-
- But the masterminds would not need competent pilots
-- if they had Global Hawk technology.
-
-
- MISSING: AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL CONVERSATIONS
-
- Now, let's look at the contemporaneous media coverage
of Operation 911. Did you notice that during the event and for weeks after,
we heard no excerpts from the conversations between the air traffic control
centers and the pilots of the four aircraft?
-
- Those conversations are recorded by the air traffic control
centers. Surely those conversations were newsworthy. They should have
been available to the media immediately. Why didn't we hear them? I believe
the answer to this question is simple:
-
- If we could hear the conversations that took place, we
would hear the airline pilots telling air traffic control that the controls
of their airplanes would not respond. The pilots, of course, would have
no way of knowing that their craft had been fitted with Global Hawk technology
programmed to take over their planes.
-
- But no, we MUST believe the crashes were the work of
Muslim terrorists. Therefore we were not permitted to hear the news as
it happened. We will have to wait for the FBI/military intelligence people
to cook up doctored and fictional conversations. They will then serve
them to the public through the complicitous mass media and strategically
placed "investigative reporters," and we will be asked to swallow
them. Many of us will. (See The Christian Science Monitor story discussed
below, "Conversations with Flight 11.")
-
-
- YASSABOSS
-
- That the airlines cooperated and did whatever the FBI
told them to do is no secret. The Washington Post of September 12, 2001,
says this: "Details about who was on Flight 77, when it took off and
what happened on board were tightly held by airline, airport and security
officials last night. All said that the FBI had asked them not to divulge
details."
-
- Think back to Operation Northwoods in which the Pentagon
considered reporting a bogus passenger airplane being shot down by a non-existent
Cuban fighter jet. The Pentagon was obviously confident that some airline
would go along with the deception. Not surprising, considering many commercial
airline pilots and executives are former military pilots, and the government
controls the airline industry in many ways. These pilots and executives
were trained to do as they are told, and would be out of a job if they
broke the rules.
-
- Why would the take-off time and the passenger list be
held secret? The passengers, crew, and culprits were all dead. The relatives
must have known that when they heard the news of the crashes. Flight departure
and arrival times had been public knowledge. The masterminds knew the
details of their own plans.
-
- No, it was the PUBLIC that was being denied information,
and the significant information being denied was the conversations between
the air traffic controllers and the pilots. Recall that during the Vietnam
War, the US "secretly" bombed Cambodia. The bombing was no secret
to the Cambodians. It was only a secret from the American public, who
were paying for the war and may have objected to the slaughter. And that's
the only purpose of the Operation 911 secrecy: To keep the information
from the public.
-
-
- COMMUNICATION WITH FLIGHT 11
-
- American Airlines Flight 11, a Boeing 767, left Boston
at 7:59 a.m. on its way to Los Angeles. It was allegedly piloted by Mohamed
Atta, one of the pilots who couldn't fly, discussed above. Flight 11 crashed
into the north tower of the WTC at 8:45 a.m.
-
- Boston airport officials said they did not spot the plane's
course until it had crashed, and said the control tower had no unusual
communications with the pilots or any crew member." (The Washington
Post, September 12, 2001, "At Logan Airport, Nobody Saw Plane's Sharp
Turn South," pg. A 10.)
-
- Sorry, this report is not credible. Airplanes are tracked
constantly. The skies over the US are for too busy for us to have a lackadaisical
attitude.
-
- Note the date of The Washington Post story: September
12. Now compare it to the very different story that appeared a day later,
in The Christian Science Monitor:
-
- An American Airlines pilot stayed at the helm of hijacked
Flight 11 much of the way from Boston to New York, sending surreptitious
radio transmissions to authorities on the ground as he flew.
-
- Because the pilot's voice was seldom heard in these covert
transmissions, it was not clear to the listening air-traffic controllers
which of the two pilots was flying the Boeing 767. What is clear is that
the pilot was secretly trying to convey to authorities the flight's desperate
situation, according to controllers familiar with the tense minutes after
Flight 11 was hijacked.
-
- The story goes on to say that the conversations were
overheard by the controllers because the pilot had pushed a "push-to-talk"
button. "When he [the pilot] pushed the button and the terrorist spoke,
we knew. There was this voice that was threatening the pilot, and it was
clearly threatening. During these transmissions, the pilot's voice and
the heavily accented voice of a hijacker were clearly audible ...."
-
- There are some logical problems with this account, of
course, not the least of which is that a) we are told the pilot's voice
was seldom heard, b) it was not possible to tell which pilot was at the
controls, and c) during the transmissions the pilot's voice was clearly
audible.
-
-
- THIS ACCOUNTING IS SPOOK TALK. LET'WS GET TO THE
HEART:
-
- All of it was recorded by a Federal Aviation Administration
traffic control center. Those tapes are now presumed to be in the hands
of federal law-enforcement officials, who arrived at the flight-control
facility minutes after Flight 11 crashed into the World Trade Center. The
tapes presumably could provide clues about the hijackers -- and may become
even more important if they plane's 'black boxes' are damaged or never
found. ("Controllers' tale of Flight 11," The Christian Science
Monitor, September 13, 2001.)
-
- So, yes, the same "federal law-enforcement"
machinery that cooked up the David Koresh negotiation tapes and arranged
to destroy the evidence at the Mt. Carmel Center in the April 19 inferno
will be handling these records, too.
-
-
- FLIGHT 175
-
- The Washington Post reported a similar story for United
Airlines Flight 175, which crashed into the south tower of the World Trade
Center tower at 9:06 a.m.
-
- Less than 30 minutes into a journey that was to have
taken six hours, Flight 175 took a sharp turn south into central New Jersey,
near Trenton, an unusual diversion for a plane heading west, airline employees
said. It then headed directly toward Manhattan.
-
- Somewhere between Philadelphia and Newark--less than
90 minutes from Manhattan--the aircraft made its final radar contact, according
to a statement released by United Airlines. (The Washington Post, "Everything
Seemed Normal When They Left' Boston Airport," September 12, 2001,
pg. A10.)
-
-
- Once again, there was no contemporaneous, detailed, first
hand information from the air traffic controllers about communication from
the air traffic controllers.
-
- Of course the controls would not respond to manual directions
if they were under the control of Global Hawk.
-
-
- FLIGHT 11 AND FLIGHT 175: HIJACKER PASSPORTS FOUND
-
- We have just mentioned the distinct possibility that
the masterminds of Operation 911 will manufacture evidence. Well, here
is a CNN story for your consideration:
-
- In New York, several blocks from the ruins of the World
Trade Center, a passport authorities said belonged to one of the hijackers
was discovered a few days ago, according to city Police Commissioner Bernard
Kerik. That has prompted the FBI and police to widen the search area beyond
the immediate crash site. ("Leaders urge 'normal' Monday after week
of terror ..., September 16, 2001 Posted: 7:07 p.m. EDT (2307 GMT) http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/gen.america.under.attack/
-
- We are asked to believe that one of the hijackers brought
his passport with him on a domestic fight, even though he knew he would
not need it then, or ever again; that upon impact the passport flew from
the hijacker's pocket (or was he holding it in his hands?), that the passport
flew out of the aircraft, that it flew out of the burning tower, and that
it was carried by the air currents and landed safely, where it could be
discovered, several blocks away ... LAWD, WHO WRITES THIS STUFF?
-
-
- FLIGHT 93
-
- United Airlines Flight 93, a Boeing 757, was scheduled
to leave Newark Airport at 8:01 a.m. for San Francisco. We are told it
crashed into an abandoned coal mine near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, at
10:37 a.m., one hour and 50 minutes after the first World Trade Center
tower was hit.
-
- Without a doubt, Flight 93 was shot down. The first
TV network reports said exactly that: Flight 93 had been shot down by
a military jet. That information even made it into the print media.
-
-
- Local residents said they had seen a second plane in
the area, possibly an F-16 fighter, and burning debris falling from the
sky. [FBI Agent] Crowley said investigators had determined that two other
planes were nearby but didn't know if either was military. ("Stories
swirl around Pa. crash; black box found," USA Today, September 14,
2001.)
-
- Pieces of the wreckage have been found as far away as
New Baltimore, about eight miles from the crash site. When the eastbound
plane crashed, a 9-knot wind was blowing from the southeast, [FBI Agent]
Crowley said. ("Bereaved may visit Flight 93 site," Pittsburgh
Tribune-Review, Friday, September 14, 2001.)
-
-
- On September 11, "[r]esidents and workers at businesses
outside Shanksville, Somerset County, reported discovering clothing, books,
papers, and what appear to be human remains. Some residents said they
collected bags-full of items to be turned over to investigators. Others
reported what appeared to be crash debris floating in Indian Lake, nearly
six miles from the crash site." ("Investigators locate 'black
box' from Flight 93; widen search area in Somerset crash," [Pittsburgh]
Post Gazette, September 13, 2001.) http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetp3.asp
-
- The Washington Post reported that, just as Congressional
leaders were discussing shooting the plane down, they learned it had crashed.
("Jetliner Was Diverted Toward Washington Before Crash in Pa,"
Sept. 12, 2001, pg. A10.) The North American Aerospace Defense Command
(NORAD) and the FBI denied that the plane had been shot down.
-
- The FBI blamed the spread of debris over an 8-mile area
on a 10 mph wind that was blowing at the time. Of the debris, TIME Magazine
of September 11 says: "The largest pieces of the plane still extant
are barely bigger than a telephone book." (Pages in this edition
are not numbered: this quote appears on what should be pg. 40).
-
- Planes that crash do not disintegrate in this manner.
However, the assertion that the hijackers had a bomb on board, and the
bomb exploded, might provide an explanation for the disintegration.
-
- There is a problem with this story, however: Hijackers
who planned to crash the plane into the Capitol would not want, or need,
a bomb. In fact, a bomb might be counterproductive: Suppose it went off
before hitting the plane hit the Capitol? The mission would be ruined.
Bringing a bomb on board would greatly increase chances the hijacker
who carried the bomb would be detected when boarding. And it's hard to
imagine why hijackers would mutilate and dismember passengers with plastic
knives and box cutters when they were planning to blow them up, anyway.
No, the bomb story does not wash. You can read one such story at: http://www.msnbc.com/news/632626.asp
-
-
- MORE MISSING AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL CONVERSATIONS
-
- According to a an ABC news report by Peter Dizikes on
September 13: "Federal Aviation Administration data shows Flight 93
followed its normal flight plan until it neared Cleveland, where the plane
took a hard turn south.
-
- "That marks the point at which the plane must have
been hijacked, investigators say. Then it took a turn east."
-
- Note that the investigators used the phrase "must
have been" hijacked. Didn't they know? Weren't the air traffic controllers
in touch with the pilots? But the direction changes with the next paragraph:
-
- 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."
-
|