http://matt-marriott.faithweb.com/destruction/wtc_conspiracy.html
Note the date of this article - October 6, 2001
********************
Operation 911
Did Military Software Control the "Hijacked" Planes?
by Carol A. Valentine
October 6, 2001-There were no "suicide" hijackers aboard those jets on
September 11. Advanced robotics technology, not the hijackers, was
controlling the jets when they crashed. Fantastic? Before I explain, read
about the history-making robot jet plane.
Global Hawk: Here You Have It . . .
The Northrop Grumman Global Hawk is a robotized American military jet that
has a wingspan of a Boeing 737. The excerpts below were taken from an
article entitled: "Robot plane flies Pacific unmanned," which appeared in
the April 24, 2001 edition of Britain's International Television News:
"'The aircraft essentially flies itself, right from takeoff, right through
to landing, and even taxiing off the runway,' according to the Global Hawk's
Australian manager Rod Smith.
"A robot plane has made aviation history by becoming the first unmanned
aircraft to fly across the Pacific Ocean."The American high-altitude Global
Hawk spy plane 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."The
article is available on the ITN website at this
http://www.itn.co.uk/news/20010424/world/05robotplane.shtm
. . . Now You Don't
Then, on September 20, 2001, The Economist published comments from a former
boss of British Airways, Robert Ayling:"On autopilot into the future"Robert
Ayling, a former boss of British Airways, suggested in the Financial Times
this week that aircraft could be commandeered from the ground and controlled
remotely in the event of a hijack . . . "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," New York Times, Sept. 28, 2001; emphasis
added.) So, then, right after Operation 911 was pulled off, two men of world
influence were pretending such technology had not yet been perfected. That
was dishonest. And revealing.Run a Google Advanced Search on the phrase
"Global Hawk," and you will find additional information. Meanwhile, I have
attached the text of the ITN article at the end of this piece.
America And Its Allies Would Never Attack America!
Now, hold it there! This is US military technology. We all surely know that
the US and its allies would not conspire to attack America! Or do we?The
Army's School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS) thinks Israel is capable
of doing exactly that. On September 10, 2001, The Washington Times ran a
front page story which quoted SAMS officers:"Of the Mossad, the Israeli
intelligence service, the SAMS officers say: 'Wildcard. Ruthless and
cunning. Has capability to target US forces and make it look like a
Palestinian/Arab act.'" ("US troops would enforce peace under Army study,"
Washington Times, Sept.. 10, 2001, pg. A1, 9.) Just 24 hours after this
story appeared, the Pentagon was hit and the Arabs were being blamed. These
SAMS officers are obviously interested in protecting their country, but not
all Americans are. Some are traitors and pay allegiance to Israel. Recall
the June 8, 1967, Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, and American complicity
in the attack (...)
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 911
job off must have known the same truth. Yet we are asked to believe that the
culprits took four jet airliners, with four sets of crew and four sets of
passengers - armed with (depending on the news reports you read) "knives,"
"plastic knives" and box cutters. Given the crazy and unpredictable nature
of humans, why would they try this bold plan when they were so poorly
armed?A lady's handbag - given the weight of the contents most women insist
on packing - is an awesome weapon. I know, I have used mine in self defense.
Are we to believe that none of the women had the testosterone to knock those
flimsy little weapons out of the hijackers' hands? And what of the
briefcases most men carry? Thrown, those briefcase can be potent weapons.
Your ordinary every-day New York mugger would never take the chances that
our culprits took.Flight attendant Michelle Heidenberger was on board Flight
77. She had been "trained to handle a hijacking. She knew not to let anyone
in the cockpit. She knew to tell the hijacker that she didn't have a key and
would have to call the pilots. None of her training mattered." (Washington
Post, "On flight 77: 'Our Plane Is Being Hijacked'." September 12, 2001,
pgs. A 1, 11.)That's right, The Washington Post for once is telling the
whole truth. Heidenberger's training didn't matter, the pilots' training
didn't matter, the ladies handbags didn't matter, the men's briefcases
didn't matter. The masterminds of Operation 911 knew that whatever happened
aboard those flights, the control of the planes was in their hands. Even if
the crew and passengers fought back, my hypothesis is that they could not
have regained control of the planes, for the planes were being controlled by
Global Hawk technology.
Flight 77: "The Plane Was Flown With Extraordinary Skill"
Once again: Operation 911 demanded that the attacks be tightly coordinated.
Four jets took off within 15 minutes of each other at Boston, Dulles, and
Newark airports, and roughly two hours later, it was over. If we are to
believe the story we are being told, the masterminds needed, at an absolute
minimum, pilots who could actually fly the planes and who could arrive at
the right place at the right time.American Airlines Flight 77, Boeing 757,
took off from Dulles Airport in Northern virginia at 8:10 a.m. and crashed
into the Pentagon at 9:40 a.m. The Washington Post's September 12 says this:
"Aviation sources said that the plane was flown with extraordinary skill,
making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm, possibly one
of the hijackers. Someone even knew how to turn off the transponder, a move
that is considerably less than obvious."According to the article, the air
traffic controllers "had time to warn the White House that the jet was aimed
directly at the president's mansion and was traveling at a gut-wrenching
speed-full throttle."But just as the plane seemed to be on a suicide mission
into the White House, the unidentified pilot executed a pivot so tight that
it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver. The plane circled 270
degrees from the right to approach the Pentagon from the west, whereupon
Flight 77 fell below radar level, vanishing from controller's screens, the
sources said," (pg. 11). (Washington Post, September 12, 2001, "On Flight
77: 'Our Plane Is Being Hijacked., pgs. 1 & 11. )
Meet Ace Suicide Pilot Hani Hanjour
Let's look at what we know about the alleged suicide pilot of American
Airlines Flight 77, Hani Hanjour. According to press reports, Hanjour had
used Bowie's Maryland Freeway Airport three times since mid-August as he
attempted to get permission to use one of the airport's planes. This from
The Prince George's [Maryland] Journal September 18, 2001:
"Marcel Bernard, the chief flight instructor at the airport, said the man
named Hani Hanjour went into the air in a Cessna 172 with instructors from
the airport three times beginning the second week of August and had hoped to
rent a plane from the airport.
"According to published reports, law enforcement sources say Hanjour, in his
mid-twenties, is suspected of crashing the American Airlines Flight 77 into
the Pentagon. . . ."Hanjour had his pilot's license, said Bernard, but
needed what is called a 'check-out' done by the airport to gauge a pilot's
skills before he or she is able to rent a plane at Freeway Airport which
runs parallel to Route 50."Instructors at the school told Bernard that after
three times in the air, they still felt he was unable to fly solo and that
Hanjour seemed disappointed."Published reports said Hanjour obtained his
pilot's license in April of 1999, but it expired six months later because he
did not complete a required medical exam. He also was trained for a few
months at a private school in Scottsdale, Ariz., in 1996, but did not finish
the course because instructors felt he was not capable."Hanjour had 600
hours listed in his log book, Bernard said, and instructors were surprised
he was not able to fly better with the amount of experience .S Pete
Goulatta, a special agent and spokesman for the FBI, said it is an on-going
criminal investigation and he could not comment." (pg. 1.)If you were the
mastermind who planned this breathtaking terrorist attack, would you trust a
man who took 600 hours of flying time and still could not do the job? Who
was paying for Hanjour's lessons, and why?Yet this is the man the FBI would
have us believe flew Flight 77 into the Pentagon "with extraordinary skill."
He could not even fly a Cessna 172!Yes, maneuvering a Boeing 757 into a 270
degree turn under tense conditions (remember, the culprits were outmanned
and had crude, non lethal weapons) demanded the skill of a fighter pilot.
But why would those bad, bad, Muslims want to do such a thing?By shifting
the plane's position so radically, Flight 77 managed to hit the side of the
Pentagon directly opposite the side on which the offices of the Secretary of
Defense and Joint Chief of Staff were located. (Coincidentally, Flight 77
hit the offices of Army operations (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 (September 19, 2001, "Hijack Suspects Tried
Many Flight Schools"), Mohammed Atta, alleged hijacker of Flight 11, and
Marwanal-Al-Shehhi, alleged hijacker of Flight 175, both of which crashed
into the World Trade Center, attended hundreds of hours of lessons at
Huffman Aviation, a flight school in Venice, Florida. They also took lessons
at Jones Aviation Flying Service Inc., which operates from the Sarasota
Bradenton International Airport. According to the Post, neither experience
"worked out.""A flight instructor at Jones who asked not be identified said
Atta and Al Shehhi arrived in September or October" and asked to be given
flight training. Atta, the instructor said, was particularly difficult. 'He
would not look at your face,' the instructor said. 'When you talked to him,
he could not look you in the eye. His attention span was very short."The
instructor said neither man was able to pass a Stage I rating test to track
and intercept. After offering some harsh words, the instructor said, the two
moved on . . . . "We didn't kick them out, but they didn't live up to our
standards." (page A 15.)Or try the Washington Post: Alleged hijackers Nawaq
Alhazmi (Flight 77), Khaid Al-Midhar (Flight 77) and Hani Hanjour (Flight
77) all spent time in San Diego. "Two of the men, Alhazmi and Al-Midhar,
also briefly attended a local fight school, but they were dropped because of
their limited English and incompetence at the controls . . . ."Last spring,
two of the men visited Montgomery Field, a community airport . . . and
sought flying lessons. They spoke to instructors at Sorbi's Flying Club,
which allowed them to take only two lessons before advising them to
quit."'Their English was horrible, and their mechanical skills were even
worse,' said an instructor, who asked not to be named. 'It was like they had
hardly even ever driven a car . . . ..'"'They seemed like nice guys,' the
instructor said, 'but in the plane, they were dumb and dumber.'" ("San
Diegans See Area as Likely Target," Washington Post, September 24, 2001, pg.
A7.)But the masterminds would not need competent pilots - if they had Global
Hawk technology.
Missing: Air Traffic Control Conversations
Now, let's look at the contemporaneous media coverage of Operation 911. Did
you notice that during the event and for weeks after, we heard no excerpts
from the conversations between the air traffic control centers and the
pilots of the four aircraft?Those conversations are recorded by the air
traffic control centers. Surely those conversations were newsworthy. They
should have been available to the media immediately. Why didn't we hear
them? I believe the answer to this question is simple:If we could hear the
conversations that took place, we would hear the airline pilots telling air
traffic control that the controls of their airplanes would not respond. The
pilots, of course, would have no way of knowing that their craft had been
fitted with Global Hawk technology programmed to take over their planes.But
no, we MUST believe the crashes were the work of Muslim terrorists.
Therefore we were not permitted to hear the news as it happened. We will
have to wait for the FBI/military intelligence people to cook up doctored
and fictional conversations. They will then serve them to the public through
the complicitous mass media and strategically placed "investigative
reporters," and we will be asked to swallow them. Many of us will. (See
Christian Science Monitor story discussed below, in "Conversations with
Flight 11.")
Yassaboss
That the airlines cooperated and did whatever the FBI told them to do is no
secret. The Washington Post of September 12, 2001, says this: "Details about
who was on Flight 77, when it took off and what happened on board were
tightly held by airline, airport and security officials last night. All said
that the FBI had asked them not to divulge details."Think back to Operation
Northwoods in which the Pentagon considered reporting a bogus passenger
airplane being shot down by a non-existent Cuban fighter jet. The Pentagon
was obviously confident that some airline would go along with the deception.
Not surprising, considering many commercial airline pilots and executives
are former military pilots, and the government controls the airline industry
in many ways. These pilots and executives were trained to do as they are
told, and would be out of a job if they broke the rules.Why would the
take-off time and the passenger list be held secret? The passengers, crew,
and culprits were all dead. The relatives must have known that when they
heard the news of the crashes. Flight departure and arrival times had been
public knowledge. The masterminds knew the details of their own plans.No, it
was the PUBLIC that was being denied information, and the significant
information being denied was the conversations between the air traffic
controllers and the pilots. Recall that during the Vietnam War, the US
"secretly" bombed Cambodia. The bombing was no secret to the Cambodians. It
was only a secret from the American public, who were paying for the war and
may have 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." (Washington
Post, September 12, 2001, "At Logan Airport, Nobody Saw Plane's Sharp Turn
South," pg. A 10.)Sorry, this report is not credible. Airplanes are tracked
constantly. The skies over the US are for too busy for us to have a
lackadaisical attitude.Note the date of the Washington Post story: September
12. Now compare it to the very different story that appeared a day later, in
the Christian Science Monitor:"An American Airlines pilot stayed at the helm
of hijacked Flight 11 much of the way from Boston to New York, sending
surreptitious radio transmissions to authorities on the ground as he
flew."Because the pilot's voice was seldom heard in these covert
transmissions, it was not clear to the listening air-traffic controllers
which of the two pilots was flying the Boeing 767. What is clear is that the
pilot was secretly trying to convey to authorities the flight's desperate
situation, according to controllers familiar with the tense minutes after
Flight 11 was hijacked."The story goes on to say that the conversations were
overheard by the controllers because the pilot had pushed a "push-to-talk"
button. "When he [the pilot] pushed the button and the terrorist spoke, we
knew. There was this voice that was threatening the pilot, and it was
clearly threatening. During these transmissions, the pilot's voice and the
heavily accented voice of a hijacker were clearly audible . . . ."There are
some logical problems with this account, of course, not the least of which
is that a) we are told the pilot's voice was seldom heard, b) it was not
possible to tell which pilot was at the controls, and c) during the
transmissions the pilot's voice was clearly audible.This accounting is spook
talk. Let's get to the heart:"All of it was recorded by a Federal Aviation
Administration traffic control center. Those tapes are now presumed to be in
the hands of federal law-enforcement officials, who arrived at the
flight-control facility minutes after Flight 11 crashed into the World Trade
Center. The tapes presumably could provide clues about the hijackers - and
may become even more important if they plane's 'black boxes' are damaged or
never found." ("Controllers' tale of Flight 11," The Christian Science
Monitor, September 13, 2001.)So, yes, the same "federal law-enforcement"
machinery that cooked up the David Koresh negotiation tapes and arranged to
destroy the evidence at the Mt. Carmel Center in the April 19 inferno will
be handling these records, too.
Flight 175
The Washington Post reported a similar story for United Airlines Flight 175,
which crashed into the south tower of the World Trade Center tower at 9:06
a.m."Less than 30 minutes into a journey that was to have taken six hours,
Flight 175 took a sharp turn south into central New Jersey, near Trenton, an
unusual diversion for a plane heading west, airline employees said. It then
headed directly toward Manhattan."Somewhere between Philadelphia and
Newark-less than 90 minutes from Manhattan-the aircraft made its final radar
contact, according to a statement released by United Airlines," (Washington
Post, "'Everything Seemed Normal When They Left' Boston Airport," September
12, 2001, pg. A10.)Once again, there was no contemporaneous, detailed, first
hand information from the air traffic controllers about communication from
the air traffic controllers.Of course the controls would not respond to
manual directions if they were under the control of Global Hawk.
Flight 11/Flight 175 "Hijacker Passport" 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
Missing Air Traffic Control Conversations
According to a an ABC news report by Peter Dizikes on September 13: "Federal
Aviation Administration data shows Flight 93 followed its normal flight plan
until it neared Cleveland, where the plane took a hard turn south."That
marks the point at which the plane must have been hijacked, investigators
say. Then it took a turn east."Note that the investigators used the phrase
"must have been" hijacked. Didn't they know? Weren't the air traffic
controllers in touch with the pilots? But the direction changes with the
next paragraph:"ABCTVNEWS has learned that shortly before the plane changed
directions, someone in the cockpit radioed in and asked the FAA for a new
flight plan, with a final destination of Washington."Now THAT conversation
must have been interesting! You can imagine the response of the air traffic
controller: "Excuse me? Flight 93, you're in the middle of a scheduled trip
to San Francisco, but you're just changed your mind and want to spend the
day in Washington? Please explain."According to an MSNBC story of September
22, 2001, Flight 93 was late taking off, and did not make its way down the
runway until 8:41 a.m. ("The Final Moments of Flight 93").
http://www.msnbc.com/news/632626.asp
It was aloft for almost two hours, crashing at 10:37 a.m. Making a rough
estimate from the distances traveled and the time in the air (see Time
Magazine, September 11, "The Paths of Destruction" ), Flight 93 went off
course sometime between 9:45 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. Recall that both towers had
been hit by 9:06 a.m., and the New York airports had been closed since 9:17
a.m. It would have been impossible for an air traffic controller on duty
between 9:45-10:00 a.m. not to know that commercial air traffic in the US
was in a dire emergency from "suicide planes."And now Flight 93 calls in,
asking permission to do a U-turn, fly east an hour and a half, and land in
Washington DC ??? What, the pilot was nervous and didn't know there were
airports in the midwest?I'd love to hear the REAL conversation between
Flight 93 and the air traffic controllers, wouldn't you? But I think we'll
have to wait a while . . .Come to think of it, why would a hijacker call in
to ask for an OK to change directions?
Conflicting And Unbelievable Reports
The networks dropped the story that Flight 93 had been shot down and now
said that Flight 93 passengers called their families and described a
hijacking. The hijackers were armed with box razors, and overwhelmed the
passengers and crew, and told the passengers they planned to crash into the
Capitol in Washington, DC. The hijackers also mutilated and dismembered the
passengers-presumably with their plastic knives and box cutters. What a
messy job that must have been! We were not told if the hijackers chatted to
the passengers about their plans before, after, or while they were
committing the mutilation/dismemberment. (I heard the
mutilation/dismemberment story once while watching network TV coverage. Then
the story was dropped.)On the other hand, Time Magazine reported that one of
the passengers called home to say: "We have been hijacked. They are being
kind." (Time, Sept. 24, pg. 73.)Are we believing this? I'm not.No. Something
went wrong with the masterminds' plan. They could not afford to have Flight
93 make a conventional landing and allow the pilots and passengers to talk
about their experience. They could not afford to have the "hijackers"
survive and the electronic controls of the plane examined. So Flight 93 was
shot down.
Who Were Those People, Anyway?
Before September 11, the combined forces of US military and domestic
intelligence - the CIA, the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the
National Security Agency - were clueless that such a catastrophic event
would occur. Yet a day or so later, the FBI had secured the names and
mugshots of each of the 19 hijackers. How did the FBI know who the hijackers
were? After all, all the eyewitnesses are dead. How could the FBI
distinguish between "regular" Muslims and hijacker Muslims on those flights?
Or did they just go through the passenger lists culling out the
Muslim-sounding names and labeling the people bearing those names as
hijackers? "You're Muslim so you're a hijacker . . . "On September 30 I
looked at the passenger lists of those four flights. To my surprise, the
lists contained none of the hijackers' names. Here are the URLs I checked:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua175.victims.html
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua93.victims.html
Then I went searching on Usenet for more information. I found that had
noticed the hijackers' names were not on the passenger lists on September
27, on alt.culture.alaska, "Re: BLACK BOXES AND BODIES (2). " I don't know
what you'll find when you look at the passenger lists, but the historical
record is there.The FBI may be lying, of course, and the airlines telling
the truth: Perhaps none of the "hijackers' were passengers on those four
planes. If that is true, the airlines are helping the FBI commit a most
grievous fraud on the public. What does that say for the airlines'
integrity? In either case, we can place little confidence in the veracity of
the information in those lists. Names could have been added just as easily
as they may have been deleted.
Don't Take The Credit, Take The Blame
By now you've realized that it's OK to believe in conspiracies provided they
are Muslim conspiracies. In fact, we MUST believe that a man who dresses in
sheets lives in a tent or a cave in the middle of nowhere - Osama bin
Laden - was the mastermind. He used his $300 million fortune to pull off
Operation 911. Come to think of it, how do we know the size of his fortune?
Does the FBI know his banker? And given that the world's banking system is
highly centralized and in the hands of Mr. bin Laden's avowed enemies, how
could our terrorist tent-dweller have retained his fortune all these years?
If Mr. bin Laden could have pulled this off in New York, why didn't he pick
on his more direct enemy, Israel, and do a 911 on them?Brilliant as Mr. bin
Laden is, he forgot to take credit for the attack. Even worse, he forgot to
issue any demands. He allowed his operatives to use their Muslim names and
leave a clear trail for the FBI to follow. Mr. Atta, the pilot of Flight 11
(north World Trade Center tower), was particularly helpful. He kindly left
his car at the Boston Airport. Luckily, an unnamed source drew the FBI's
attention to this car. According to radio reports, the FBI found a suicide
note written in Arabic and a copy of the Koran in the car. Mr. Atta liked to
write in Arabic; he wrote a second, long document in that language, which,
for some reason, he put in his luggage.Coincidentally, this luggage did not
make it to Flight 11, so the FBI found it at the airport. Another lucky
break! But why Mr. Atta would take luggage on a suicide mission has not been
explained. The same note was carried by one of the hijackers on Flight 93,
and, Mother of Miracles! survived the crash, even though the airplane itself
was torn into shards. Everything was so amazing that Bob Woodward, the man
who talks to the dead [Bill Casey], was called in to write a story about it
all.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37629-2001Sep27.html
Read Mr. Woodward's article. Mr. Atta sounds like a lawyer with his wires
crossed, exhorting his co-conspirators to remember their wills and reminding
them that Mohammed was an "optimist;" exhorting his fellows to "utilize"
(ugh-there's a lawyer's word for you - what's Arabic for "utilize"?) their
few hours left to ask God's forgiveness. God's forgiveness for what? They
were about to die heros, martyrs in the good cause . . .Sure, we believe
every word. We swallow the whole story.
Carol Valentine is President of Public Action, Inc., and Curator of the Waco
Holocaust Electronic Museum
from The Laissez Faire City Times, Vol 5, No 42, October 15, 2001
Robot plane flies Pacific unmanned
http://www.itn.co.uk/news/20010424/world/05robotplane.shtm
(ITN Entertainment April 24, 2001) - "The aircraft essentially flies itself,
right from take-off, right through to landing, and even taxiing off the
runway." - Australian Global Hawk manager Rod Smith.A robot plane has made
aviation history by becoming the first unmanned aircraft to fly across the
Pacific Ocean.The American high-altitude Global Hawk spy plane [flew] across
the ocean to Australia, defence officials confirmed.The Global Hawk, a
jet-powered aircraft with a wingspan equivalent to a Boeing 737, flew from
Edwards Air Force Base in California and landed late on Monday at the Royal
Australian Air Force base at Edinburgh, in South Australia state.The 8600
mile (13840 km) flight, at an altitude of almost 12.5 miles (20 km), took 22
hours and set a world record for the furthest a robotic aircraft has flown
between two points.The Global Hawk flies along a pre-programmed flight path,
but a pilot monitors the aircraft during its flight via a sensor suite which
provides infra-red and visual images."The aircraft essentially flies itself,
right from takeoff, right through to landing, and even taxiing off the
runway," said Rod Smith, the Australian Global Hawk manager."While in
Australia, the Global Hawk will fly about 12 maritime surveillance and
reconnaissance missions around Australia's remote coastline."It can fly
non-stop for 36 hours and search 52,895 square miles (37,000 square km) in
24 hours. Australia is assessing the aircraft and might buy it in the
future."Emerging systems such as the Global Hawk offer Australia great
potential for surveillance, reconnaissance and ultimately the delivery of
combat power," said Brendan Nelson, parliamentary secretary to the
Australian defence minister."Nelson said the Global Hawk could be used in
combat to 'detect, classify and monitor' targets as they approached the
Australian coast."Source : The International Television News - article on
the Global Hawk
|