posted 03-22-2002 12:44 AM            

dude and dudettes

posted 03-22-2002 05:17 PM            

The rashes on the students' arms and necks surfaced nearly two months after hundreds of students in the area complained of similar rashes. Since October, 14 states have reported outbreaks of unexplained rashes affecting 10 to 600 people at a time.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found no common cause for the outbreaks.

About 34 students at Mast Community Charter School in northeast Philadelphia reported the rash Wednesday and were sent home. Another 26 were sent home Thursday, said Karen Delguercio, president of the school's board of trustees.

The school sent letters to parents of nearly 1,000 students explaining the problem.

``What the Health Department told us is that it appeared to be a viral infection similar to this mystery rash that's going around,'' Delguercio said.

posted 03-23-2002 05:11 PM            

If we are not free to question government, then we are not free.

"We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promise of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."
- David Rockefeller, at a 1991 Bilderberger meeting.

The media has further ignored ties of the Bush family, Cheney, and nearly all the Bush political appointees, to the CIA and its major drug dealing, major oil interests, other business entities it has huge investments in - including the Carlyle Group, Enron, and BioPort, to name a few.

. Just as William Randolph Hearst once said, 'Truth is the first casualty of war.'

The media in this nation of free speech should be free to print or state the facts - that is, if they weren't either too scared to or enjoying some financial or other perks for not doing so. Either way, whether voluntarily or coerced into doing so, the media is aiding and abetting in multiple unconstitutional activities, such as profiteering, extortion, conspiracy, misprision of felony [when they know the truth but fail to report felonies committed] and fraud of the American people. In other words, by helping the government to aid and abet enemies of the people of the States - including if the enemy is the government - they become part of the conspiracy to destroy freedom.

As was said by President Franklin Pierce in his inaugural address:

"You have a right to expect your agents [and political leaders] in every department to regard strictly the limits imposed upon them by the Constitution of the United States."

If the time to reveal hidden agendas is not now - what would be a better time? Are we to wait until hundreds of millions are dead if current actions in other countries develop into World War III? Are we not at the crossroads leading either to liberty or to servitude to government? Are we once again going to ignore the warnings of our forefathers?

Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper #8 warned us of men with such contradicting programs as we are currently being exposed to:

"The continual alarm on a state of continual danger will compel the people most attached to liberty to resort for security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they [the People] become willing to risk their freedoms."

other good reading at
http://www.baltech.org/lederman/Bush-Giuliani-Future-of-American-Freedom-10-06-01.html

excerpt
9 Unpopular Ideas On 9/11
by Robert Lederman
Among the many unanswered questions since the attack, only a single columnist has dared to ask in print why Giuliani located his $15 million emergency bunker - complete with 6,000 gallons of highly flammable fuel - on the 23rd floor of the very NYC building complex most expected by FEMA and other Federal agencies to be bombed by terrorists.

Village Voice 10/8/2001 From: La Dolce Musto

"But before you decide: In '99, despite complaints-like how the building was a potential target and also happened to be owned by a political supporter-our mayor had an emergency bunker built at 7 World Trade Center. Legendarily enough, a 6000-gallon fuel tank was installed there to run the generators in case of a power outage. Well, when the planes hit the other two towers on September 11, flying debris fell on 7 WTC, which some insiders say ignited that very fuel. Still love Rudy?"

"Mayor Rudolph Giuliani is now bracing for a whole other order of urban treachery and cataclysm by building a $15.1 million emergency control center for his administration...bullet-proofed, hardened to withstand bombs and hurricanes, and equipped with food and beds for at least 30 members of his inner circle." -NY Times 6/13/98 Giuliani's $15.1 Million 'Emergency Control Center

NY Times 10/24/2001Split in Ranks: Commissioner Hears the Boos of Firefighters

[Edited 2 times, lastly by mark sky on 03-23-2002]

posted 03-23-2002 05:25 PM            

The secret "shadow" government is the large organisational network which operates alongside the officially elected and appointed government of the United States of America. Just as with the official government, the secret government has functional branches.

Just as with the official government, the Shadow Government has functional branches. However, unlike the official government, the purpose of the non-executive branches of the Shadow Government is simply to distribute various functions, but not to achieve a system of checks and balances, as was supposed to happen constitutionally between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the U.S. Government. That is because the Shadow Government is a creature of a powerful elite, who need not fear being dominated by an instrument of their own creation.

In the Shadow Government five branches may be identified. These branches are: the Executive Branch, the Intelligence Branch, the War Department, the Weapons Industry Branch, and the Financial Department.

THE REST can be found here http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/secgov.html

posted 03-23-2002 05:31 PM            

http://www.stormtronic.co.uk/9-11/no-hijackers.htm

posted 03-23-2002 08:04 PM            

[4] Of the more than four thousand Iraqi military officers brought into the U.S. by then President Bush, more than five hunded reside with their families in Lincoln, Nebraska, and two thousand with their families reside in Oklahoma City and right nearby.

posted 03-23-2002 10:26 PM            

The War on Dissent Widens
Jim Lobe, AlterNet
March 12, 2002

A powerful group of neo-conservatives is launching a new public relations campaign in support of President George W. Bush's war on terrorism.

At a Tuesday gathering of the National Press Club, members of the new Americans for Victory Over Terrorism (AVOT) declared their intention to "take to task those groups and individuals who fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the war we are facing."

posted 03-23-2002 10:39 PM            

Security is heavy as Bush visits; police quash demonstrations http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAU7RL56ZC.html

LIMA, Peru (AP) - Thousands of police and military personnel stood guard and scuttled anti-American demonstrations Saturday as President Bush made a historic visit here three days after a deadly bombing near the U.S. Embassy.

Tanks, armored cars and water cannon trucks prowled the Peruvian capital while some 7,000 riot police and troops in camouflage stood with machine guns to deter another attack.

The 17-hour visit opened with scattered protests and riot police used tear gas in one brief clash to scatter about 100 demonstrators, then deployed a water cannon truck hours later to squelch a second demonstration of about the same size.

posted 03-24-2002 12:45 AM            

Others in Lima had high hopes

posted 03-24-2002 11:48 PM            

MORE SITES BEING TAKEN OFFLINE....

Posted By: Stormy
Date: Sunday, 24 March 2002, 11:10 a.m.

We are currently doing what we can to get our site (www.9-11.co.uk) back up and running. Yet again we were attacked and the server was remotely shut down removing access to all the sites hosted upon it. Strangely enough, the same thing also just happened to Mike Ruppert, as you will see by reading the following article @ Rense.com - http://www.rense.com/general21/ddp.htm

This is starting to become a weekly thing for us, which is getting more and more annoying each time. No matter how much security, or how many firewalls, they still come back and step on us like we're nothing. Each time though, we get back up and get straight back to work. They can't stop us, only inconvenience us. Since launching this is about the 5th or 6th time we've expereinced this kind of problem, so I just hope this is the last. I doubt it very much though.

I don't understand why we are being targeted and not another site. We don't have anything different than sites such as Rumor Mill News or anywhere else. Infact, we have much less. Maybe they just didn't like the fact we listed all the hundreds of .mil & .gov visitors, who knows?

Rest assured, we will be back online again as soon as possible.

God bless.

9-11 : Who & Why?

Messages In This Thread

posted 03-25-2002 09:46 AM            

quote:

---

word is that the following can no longer post
Moose~ on the message boards Carnicom or ChemtrailCentral
Trailmeister et all~ also on both boards
Deborah~ also on both boards
HiGh hOpes~ past page #46 for Thermit( he got a word in with "perswasion" ) FlKook and mark sky, but not Lulu
strange indeed

---

posted 03-25-2002 10:57 PM            

By Matthew Mosk
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 25, 2002; Page A01

Maryland's House of Delegates is preparing to pass anti-terrorism
legislation today that would dramatically expand the ability of police to
tap phones and eavesdrop on the e-mail and Internet activity of suspected
criminals -- part of a deluge of terror-busting measures under consideration
in nearly every state capital.

The Maryland bill, like those in dozens of other states, has inspired a
heated clash between civil libertarians and those who believe that some
rights must be compromised to prevent another attack on U.S. soil.

Each time that conflict surfaced last week, as Maryland delegates met in
committee to craft the legislation, concerns about security ultimately
outweighed fears about the potential for police abuse.

"I realize that this bill basically says you can tap someone's phone for
jaywalking, and normally I would say, 'No way,' " said Del. Dana Lee Dembrow
(D-Montgomery). "But after what happened on September 11th, I say screw
'em."

The results have been similar across the country, including in Virginia, as
state lawmakers inch their way into the war against international terrorism.
Although some of the 1,200 anti-terrorism measures being contemplated by
state legislatures this year have involved such benign security methods as
requiring fencing around reservoirs, others will substantially broaden the
scope of police rights to probe into private lives.

"State legislatures are in the process of recalibrating the appropriate
balance between liberty and security in the post-September 11th world," said
Michael Mello, a Vermont Law School professor who recently testified on an
anti-terrorism bill in Montpelier.

Most of what is occurring, Mello said, involves a localized repackaging of
federal anti-terrorism laws, passed by Congress in October as the
USA-Patriot Act. A range of new eavesdropping allowances, in particular,
draw from the federal statute, which applies only to federal law enforcement
agencies.

Like the Patriot Act, proposals in Maryland and a new law in Virginia permit
law enforcement officials to get court orders to retrieve records of e-mails
and other electronic communications, not just telephone records.

Maryland's proposal would also expand the ability of police to tap phones by
allowing investigators to plant a listening device indefinitely, not just 30
days. It would, for the first time, permit use of a "roving wire tap" to
record a suspect's conversations on multiple phones with a single warrant.
And it would allow a judge to seal search warrants for up to a year.

The bill, which would move to the Senate if approved, would also tighten
airport security and widen the purview of state transit police to cover more
area around harbors and airports. It would, for the first time, define
terrorism as a specific crime and attach to it severe penalties.

"Our goal was to conform our law to what the feds are already doing," said
Del. Ann Marie Doory (D-Baltimore), who sponsored the Maryland Security
Protection Act of 2002.

In January, Gov. Parris N. Glendening (D) formed a task force to pull a wide
range of initiatives into one bill. Several of the task force proposals have
since been stripped away by uneasy lawmakers, including restrictions that
would have prevented foreign nationals from holding driver's licenses if
their visas had expired.

Backers of the remaining proposals said they hoped that local and state
police agencies would use the new, expanded powers to assist federal
agencies in monitoring suspected terrorists who move into suburban
neighborhoods and try to blend in to the local scene -- just as a band of
Sept. 11 hijackers did in Laurel before their attack.

Given the potential for mass casualties, said Del. Robert A. Zirkin
(D-Baltimore County), the occasional intrusion into lives "seems worth the
risk."

"I know it's hard to swallow," Zirkin said. "But I think we need to take a
couple steps in that direction right now."

But just as the USA-Patriot Act evoked an outcry from a surprising coalition
of liberals and conservatives, these state proposals have found a wide band
of critics.

In the Maryland House, concerns about the intrusiveness of the bill have
brought together Del. Sharon Grosfeld (D-Montgomery), arguably among the
most liberal members, and Del. Carmen Amedori (R-Carroll), among the most
conservative.

Said Grosfeld: "These changes infringe on basic and fundamental civil
rights."

Added Amedori: "Security is important, but are we going to be any more
secure if we impede on personal freedom?"

During committee hearings, the opponents argued that election-year
politics -- and the intense political pressure to pass something that
appears to be tough on terrorism -- is at the root of Maryland's
anti-terrorism effort. They predicted that most of the proposals, if they
become law, would be used in criminal cases that have nothing to do with
international terrorism.

David Rocah, a staff attorney for the Baltimore office of the American Civil
Liberties Union, called it "dishonest packaging."

Rocah said that police will wind up listening in on conversations and
reading e-mail involving innocent people. He pointed to statistics compiled
by local prosecutors in Maryland showing that 91 percent of the
conversations that were recorded by police during investigations in 2000
turned out to involve parties with no connection to the crimes being
investigated.

"That's where there's a huge invasion of privacy," Rocah said, "and where
innocent people are victimized."

Critics have also raised objections to the provision that makes terrorism a
new crime. Much as hate-crime laws attached stiffer penalties to existing
infractions, the terrorism charge could be hooked to any of a long list of
existing crimes, as long as the suspect committed them with the intention of
instilling widespread fear or coercing action from the government.

The problem with that, Grosfeld said, is that "you're talking about very
harsh penalties that could be added based on someone's political beliefs,
not because of their actions. That strikes me as very dangerous."

That does not frighten Del. Thomas E. Hutchins (R-Charles), a Vietnam War
veteran who said the current climate in the country demands different rules.

"You've got to understand the importance of being able to gather
intelligence to block something horrible from happening," Hutchins told his
colleagues. "You've got to understand how a war is fought. I can tell you,
it's pretty damn dirty."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12099-2002Mar24.html
you know you read something like this and it is OK to feel
however you do
its up to you to decide
RiGhT?
like the vietnam vet who fought "for this country and all it STANDS (stood) for"
don't you just love these things they trot out
it is almost like a parade of symbiontz
from another world

[Edited 1 times, lastly by mark sky on 03-25-2002]

posted 03-25-2002 11:27 PM            

toady NBC CIA CBS PBS NSA (and a wholy owned subsideary) of the US trust
went bank Qurupt in the biggest scandel
you will never ever hear of

little big men? in annonimouse coats
spoke upon the backs of souls
(condition of annomomimity)
what you call my mother you fool?
OK lets get serious
Naught yet~ but in a little while
these anonimouse dudes have
stolen the breathable air, with millions in dispare
lyed about weather the had sex with the statosphere
or even in the same underground chamber
with channie while
he was "doing business"
with the dollar reciever energy turnaround
and you want respect JaY?
giggleplex set at maX

posted 03-26-2002 01:16 AM            

Copyright Joe Vialls, October 2001, Updated 20 January 2002

Pentagon Strike
Boeing 757 x 1
About 230,000#

World Trade Center Strike
Boeing 767 x 2
About 420,000# each

Flight 175 Impact +1 Second
(Allow Time for Video to Load )

In the mid-seventies America faced a new and escalating crisis, with US commercial jets being hijacked for geopolitical purposes. Determined to gain the upper hand in this new form of aerial warfare, two American multinationals collaborated with the Defense Advanced Projects Agency (DARPA) on a project designed to facilitate the remote recovery of hijacked American aircraft. Brilliant both in concept and operation, ““Home Run”” [not its real code name] allowed specialist ground controllers to listen in to cockpit conversations on the target aircraft, then take absolute control of its computerized flight control system by remote means.
From that point onwards, regardless of the wishes of the hijackers or flight deck crew, the hijacked aircraft could be recovered and landed automatically at an airport of choice, with no more difficulty than flying a radio-controlled model plane. The engineers had no idea that almost thirty years after its initial design, Home Run’’s top secret computer codes would be broken, and the system used to facilitate direct ground control of the four aircraft used in the high-profile attacks on New York and Washington on 11th September 2001.
Before moving on to the New York and Washington attacks, we first need to look at the ways in which an aircraft is normally controlled by its pilot, because without this basic knowledge, Home Run would make no sense. In order to control an aircraft in three-dimensional space, the pilot uses the control yoke (joystick) in front of him, rudder pedals under his feet, and a bank of engine throttles located at his side. Without engine thrust the aircraft would not fly at all, so the throttles are largely self explanatory: For more speed or altitude increase throttle, for less speed or altitude decrease throttle.
In order to raise or lower the nose of the aircraft, the pilot pulls or pushes on the control yoke, which in turn raises or lowers the elevators on the horizontal tailplane. To bank the aircraft left or right, the pilot moves the control yoke to the left or right, which in turn operates the ailerons on the outer wings. Lastly, to turn left or right at low speed or ““balance”” turns at high speed, the pilot presses the left or right rudder pedals as required, which in turn move the rudder on the vertical stabilizer.
Back in the early days of flight, the control yoke and rudder pedals were connected to the various flight control surfaces by thin cables, meaning the pilot had direct physical control over every movement the aircraft made. This was no great problem for an average man flying a small biplane, but as aircraft grew ever bigger, heavier and faster over the years, the loadings on the control yoke and rudder pedals became huge, certainly well beyond the ability of a single pilot to handle unaided.
By the late fifties we were well into the age of hydraulics, where just like the power steering on your automobile, hydraulic rams were placed in line between the pilot’’s control cables and each individual control surface. Now when the pilot moved the control yoke, the cables activated sensors, which in turn activated one or more hydraulic rams, which in turn moved one or more control surfaces. For the first time since Bleriot and the Wright brothers, pilots were of necessity being steadily distanced from direct control of their own aircraft.
When the multinationals and DARPA finally came on the scene in the mid-seventies, aircraft systems were even more advanced, with computers controlling onboard autopilots, which in turn were capable of controlling all of the onboard hydraulics. In combination these multiple different functions were now known as the ““Flight Control System”” or FCS, in turn integrated with sophisticated avionics capable of automatically landing the aircraft in zero visibility conditions. In summary, by the mid-seventies most of the large jets were capable of effectively navigating hundreds of miles and then making automatic landings at a selected airport in zero-zero fog conditions. All of this could be accomplished unaided, but in theory at least, still under the watchful eyes of the flight deck crews.
In order to make Home Run truly effective, it had to be completely integrated with all onboard systems, and this could only be accomplished with a new aircraft design, several of which were on the drawing boards at that time. Under cover of extreme secrecy, the multinationals and DARPA went ahead on this basis and built ““back doors”” into the new computer designs. There were two very obvious hard requirements at this stage, the first a primary control channel for use in taking over the flight control system and flying the aircraft back to an airfield of choice, and secondly a covert audio channel for monitoring flight deck conversations. Once the primary channel was activated, all aircraft functions came under direct ground control, permanently removing the hijackers and pilots from the control loop.
Remember here, this was not a system designed to ““undermine”” the authority of the flight crews, but was put in place as a ““doomsday”” device in the event the hijackers started to shoot passengers or crew members, possibly including the pilots. Using the perfectly reasonable assumption that hijackers only carry a limited number of bullets, and many aircraft nowadays carry in excess of 300 passengers, Home Run could be used to fly all of the survivors to a friendly airport for a safe auto landing. So the system started out in life for the very best of reasons, but finally fell prey to security leaks, and eventually to compromised computer codes. In light of recent high-profile CIA and FBI spying trials, these leaks and compromised codes should come as no great surprise to anyone.
Activating the primary Home Run channel proved to be easy. Most readers will have heard of a ““transponder””, prominent in most news reports immediately following the attacks on New York and Washington. Technically a transponder is a combined radio transmitter and receiver which operates automatically, in this case relaying data between the four aircraft and air traffic control on the ground. The signals sent provide a unique ““identity”” for each aircraft, essential in crowded airspace to avoid mid-air collisions, and equally essential for Home Run controllers trying to lock onto the correct aircraft. Once it has located the correct aircraft, Home Run ““piggy backs”” a data transmission onto the transponder channel and takes direct control from the ground. This explains why none of the aircraft sent a special ““I have been hijacked”” transponder code, despite multiple activation points on all four aircraft. Because the transponder frequency had already been piggy backed by Home Run, transmission of the special hijack code was rendered impossible. This was the first hard proof that the target aircraft had been hijacked electronically from the ground, rather than by [FBI-inspired] motley crews of Arabs toting penknives.
The Home Run listening device on the flight deck utilizes the cockpit microphones that normally feed the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR), one of two black boxes armored to withstand heavy impact and thereby later give investigators significant clues to why the aircraft crashed. However, once hooked into Home Run, the CVRs are bypassed and voice transmissions are no longer recorded on the 30-minute endless loop recording tape. If Home Run is active for more than thirty minutes, there will therefore be no audible data on the Cockpit Voice Recorders. To date, crash investigators have recovered the CVRs from the Pentagon and Pittsburg aircraft, and publicly confirmed that both are completely blank. The only possible reason for this, is data capture by Home Run, providing the final hard proof that the attack aircraft were hijacked electronically from the ground, rather than by ““Arab terrorists””.
Many readers might by now be indignant; convinced this is incorrect or misleading information because of ““those telephone calls from the hijacked aircraft””. Which telephone calls exactly? There are no records of any such calls, and the emotional claptrap the media fed you in the aftermath of the attack was in all cases third-person. We had the media’’s invisible ““contact”” at an airline who ““said”” a hostess called to report a hijacking, and we had a priest (?) who ““said”” he received a call from a man asking him in turn to call his wife and tell her he loved her.
Presumably this man would have had his wife’’s name filed in his cellphone, and faced with imminent death would have called her direct. The FAA helped out by claiming that it had ““overheard”” a heated argument from a cockpit where the radio transmit switch had been left in the ““on”” position. When push came to shove, the FAA was forced to retract, and admit that the mythical argument was not on the tapes at all.
Critically, the passenger manifests for all four aircraft serve as the final (independent) proof that no alleged hijackers or anyone of Arabic name boarded any of the four aircraft used in the attacks. As Laurence T. May points out:
"On September 11, airline check-in counters were the only places in the United States that required travellers to present a photo ID in order to travel. A photo ID meant (and still means) a card issued by some branch of civil government. Years ago, the United States government took the first step toward a national ID card when it mandated the requirement that all passengers present a photo ID card before being allowed to get on a commercial airplane.
"This means that the tightest security that the typical American ever confronts is airport security. This is the model for all other security systems governing the general public. Let's go through the check-in routine together. Pretend that it's September 11, and you are a check-in agent at either a United Airlines counter or an American Airlines counter. It is your job to ask the standard questions. "Did you pack your own luggage? Have you had it in your possession at all times?" Then you ask for a photo ID. The name on the ID must match the name on the
ticket. The photo must match the person presenting the card." .. And, you guessed it, the name on the ID must match that on the passenger manifest held by the airline ground staff!
It seems highly likely that these revealing passenger manifests will magically disappear when the American Government realizes the dangers of allowing the public access to such incriminating documents. For that reason I have listed the full manifests on a separate page. To visit that page and copy the lists, click here.
Whether more information will be forthcoming about Home Run is unknown, but nowadays there are large numbers of people apart from the author privy to the basic data. As long ago as the early nineties, a major European flag carrier acquired the information and was seriously alarmed that one of its own aircraft might be ““rescued”” by the Americans without its authority. Accordingly, this flag carrier completely stripped the American flight control computers out of its entire fleet, and replaced them with a home grown version. These aircraft are now effectively impregnable to penetration by Home Run, but that is more than can be said for the American aircraft fleet.
A casual count indicates that more than 600 aircraft in the USA and elsewhere are still vulnerable and could be used in further attacks at any time, which might help explain why America has been bombing the Afghans primarily with bags of wheat. For the first time in US history, American officials appear to be genuinely fearful of future reprisals, and justifiably so with 600 giant bombs parked on the wrong side of their missile defence shield.
It is a ““Catch 22”” situation. In order to make all of the aircraft safe, the flight control systems would have to be stripped out and replaced, at a cost of billions of dollars the airlines cannot afford because they are going broke. Nor is there enough time. The most innovative anti-hijacking tool in the American arsenal, has now become the biggest known threat to American national security.
For the purpose of public reassurance I would like to publish a complete list of aircraft which cannot be affected by Home Run, but I cannot do so for legal reasons. Any aircraft manufacturer not on the list might feel inclined to sue me for defamation and I can’’t afford that. However, there is nothing to stop me publishing my personal choice of aircraft for a flight from, say, Atlanta to Singapore via JFK, Frankfurt, and Kuala Lumpur.
From Atlanta to JFK I would probably travel on a Boeing 737, and connect with a Boeing 777 for the onward flight to Frankfurt. At Frankfurt I would probably board an Airbus A340 for Kuala Lumpur, and finish the journey on a DC9 or a Fokker 100. Naturally I might be unlucky and pick an aircraft with an intoxicated pilot, or an unrelated mechanical problem, but apart from those minor risks I’’d feel pretty safe.

15 October 2001

After this page had been hit on by more than 10,000 curious visitors, the current issue of "Business Week" (22Oct) decided to publish an unusual letter, suggesting that the events of the 11th of September would have ended rather differently if there was a capability for Ground Tower Control to "take over the controls of a hijacked plane" (issue still available at any US newsagent).
Remember, the American Federal Government kept Reagan National airport in downtown Washington, DC shut, despite the fact that none of the "hijacked" planes came from there. However, if it were possible to "take over the controls" of a plane, then it would take less than a minute for planes close to DCA airport to be diverted to a target anywhere in the capital. There were just two aircraft types involved on the 11th of September.
Eventually, after much reluctance, the government has now opened up Reagan National airport again, but ONLY for planes with less than 156 seats. Now what kind of planes previously operating happily out of Reagan National will this new "seating" restriction exclude? Hint: Among a few others, the Boeing 757 and 767.
Cynics might be tempted to conclude that, as usual, "important" politicians and bureaucrats are being provided with discreet special protection from Home Run, while everyday Americans are left to take their chances as best they can, and run the continual risk of being shot down by one of their own F16 fighters. Ignorance may be bliss for some folk, but not for those who have studied this page and realized the implications.

18 October 2001

Suddenly, more than five weeks after the attack and for no apparent reason, the most powerful newspaper in the western world published a major article "reinforcing" the myth that physical hijackers were responsible for the attacks on 11 September. No hard facts of course, no corroboration at all, just the usual pathetic series of media "sources", all of them far too "secret" to reveal.
Within hours of this newspaper going to press, television reporters across the entire western world repeated the fiction to their own viewing publics. From London in England to Sydney in Australia, everone woke to this new "proof" that Arabs were the real culprits. Never mind public safety, please believe what we, your trusted and experienced news peddlers, are telling you. To read the propaganda, click here.

19 October 2001

During the past few days I have received many emails asking for a written explanation of who was behind the attacks on 11 September, and why. As an investigator I can prove how the attack was carried out, but I cannot prove why or by whom. Of all the work I have seen on the Internet, the closest to the truth is probably this imspired report called "Orient Express" written by journalist Israel Shamir. To read "Orient Express", click here.

25 October 2001

Though I do not agree with the financial rationale where this report is concerned, the Colonel and his highly specialized group provide valuable additional insights into the impossibility of "hijackers" flying the attack aircraft on 11 September. To read "The Enemy is Inside The Gates", click here.

20 January 2002

Former German Minister Von Buelow Already Knew About Remote Control

In his interview with the German daily "Tagesspiegel" on January 13th, former German Secretary of Defence Andreas Von Buelow made the following statement:-
"There is also the theory of one British flight engineer: according to this, the steering of the planes was perhaps taken out of the pilots' hands, from outside. The Americans had developed a method in the 1970s, whereby they could rescue hijacked planes by intervening into the computer piloting [automatic pilot system]. This theory says, this technique was abused in this case..."
Not quite so much a theory as might first appear. When I released the above report about "Home Run" remote control in October 2001, I mentioned that one European flag carrier was aware of the technology, though at that precise point in time I thought it prudent not to name the actual airline:-
"As long ago as the early nineties, a major European flag carrier acquired the information and was seriously alarmed that one of its own aircraft might be "rescued" by the Americans without its authority. Accordingly, this flag carrier completely stripped the American flight control computers out of its entire fleet, and replaced them with a home grown version. These aircraft are now effectively impregnable to penetration by Home Run, but that is more than can be said for the American aircraft
fleet..."
The European flag carrier which completely stripped the American flight computers out of its aircraft was Lufthansa, the German national airline. Bearing in mind his former posts as Secretary of Defence and Minister of Science and Technology, Herr Von Buelow would have known all about this mammoth but secretive task.
How very clever (and discreet) of Von Buelow to sort of "drop the information" into the middle of an interview about the 9/11 attacks!