Plant Trees SF Events 2005 Archive: 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021


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
. . . 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.")
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) 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.)
 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:
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").
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:
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 
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
(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 

For updates and info, contact scott at planttrees dot org.