posted 01-04-2002 08:57 AM            

There were no "suicide" pilots on those September 11 jets. The jets were controlled by advanced robotics and remote-control technology, not hijackers. Fantastic? Before I explain, read about the history-making robot/remote-controlled jet plane.


GLOBAL HAWK: NOW YOU HAVE IT...

The Northrop Grumman Global Hawk is a robotized American military jet that has a wingspan of a Boeing 737. The excerpts below were taken from an article entitled: "Robot plane flies Pacific unmanned," which appeared in the April 24, 2001 edition of Britain's International Television News:

"The aircraft essentially flies itself, right from takeoff, right through to landing, and even taxiing off the runway," according to the Australian Global Hawk manager Rod Smith.

A robot plane has made aviation history by becoming the first unmanned aircraft to fly across the Pacific Ocean.

The American high-altitude Global Hawk spy plane made flew (sic) across the ocean to Australia, defence officials confirmed.

The Global Hawk, a jet-powered aircraft with a wingspan equivalent to a Boeing 737 [NOTE: two of the aircraft involved in the 911 crashes were Boeing 757s, two were Boeing 767s] flew from Edwards Air Force Base in California and landed late on Monday at the Royal Australian Air Force base at Edinburgh, in South Australia state. . . .

It flies along a pre-programmed flight path, but a pilot monitors the aircraft during its flight via a sensor suite which provides infra-red and visual images. (http://www.itn.co.uk/news/20010424/world/05robotplane.shtm)


... AND NOW YOU DON'T -

Then, on September 20, 2001, The Economist published comments from a former boss of British Airways, Robert Ayling:

On autopilot into the future "Robert Ayling, a former boss of British Airways, suggested in The Financial Times this week that aircraft could be commandeered from the ground and controlled remotely in the event of a hijack ... (as quoted by KC on alt.current-events.wtc explosion).

So, even though the ITN article was published on April 24, in September, after the 911 crashes, Mr. Ayling is PRETENDING Global Hawk technology is a thing of the future.


THEN THE NEW YORK TIMES RAN THIS:

. . . In addition, the president [President Bush] said he would give grants to airlines to allow them to develop stronger cockpit doors and transponders that cannot be switched off from the cockpit. Government grants would also be available to pay for video monitors that would be placed in the cockpit to alert pilots to trouble in the cabin; and new technology, probably far in the future, allowing air traffic controllers to land distressed planes by remote control. ("Bush to Increase Federal Role in Security at Airports," The New York Times, Sept. 28, 2001; emphasis added.)

So, then, right after Operation 911 was pulled off, two men of world influence were pretending such technology had not yet been perfected. That was dishonest. And revealing.

Run a Google Advanced Search on the phrase "Global Hawk," and you will find additional information. Meanwhile, I have attached the text of the ITN article at the end of this piece.

Technically speaking, we could have a "suicidal" airplane fly into a building without a suicidal pilot. Robotics and remote control technology has developed to the point that a high-altitude Global Hawk (or a low-altitude Tomahawk cruise missile) can be guided into collision with a target without a Kamikaze pilot in the cockpit.

America And Its Allies Would Never Attack America! Now, hold it there! This is US military technology. We all surely know that the US and its allies would not conspire to attack America! Or do we?

The Army's School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS ) thinks Israel is capable of doing exactly that. On September 10, 2001, The Washington Times ran a front page story which quoted SAMS officers:


"Of the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, the SAMS officers say: 'Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target US forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act.'" ("US troops would enforce peace under Army study," The Washington Times, Sept.. 10, 2001, pg. A1, 9.) Just 24 hours after this story appeared, the Pentagon was hit and the Arabs were being blamed.

These SAMS officers are obviously interested in protecting their country, but not all Americans are. Some are traitors and pay allegiance to Israel. Recall the June 8, 1967, Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, and American complicity in the attack.

During the Six Day War, the Liberty, an American intelligence gathering ship, was sailing in international waters. Israeli aircraft and torpedo boats attacked it for 75 minutes. http://ennes.org/jim/ussliberty/


When four US fighter jets from a nearby aircraft carrier came to protect the Liberty, US Defense Secretary Robert McNamara ordered the jets NOT to come to the Liberty's aid, and allowed the Israeli attack to continue. Thirty-fourAmericans were killed and 171 wounded. http://ennes.org/jim/ussliberty/chapter6.htm

Now consider Operation Northwoods: In 1962, US military leaders designed a plan to conduct terrorist acts against Americans and blame Cuba, to create popular sentiment for invasion of that country. Operation Northwoods included: * Plans to shoot down a CIA plane designed to replicate a passenger flight and announce that Cuban forces shot it down.

* Creation of military casualties by blowing up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blaming Cuba: "....casualty lists in the US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation," and

* Development of a terror campaign in the Miami and Washington, DC. Information on Operation Northwoods can be found in James Bamford's Body of Secrets, (Doubleday, 2001), and at the following URLs.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/bal-te.md.nsa24apr24.story http://www.earlham.edu/archive/opf-l/May-2001/msg00062.html http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/

In other words, US allies and people within the US military establishment are not opposed to killing American servicemen and civilians, given the right goal.


WHY TAKE CHANCES?

Put yourself in the shoes of the masterminds of Operation 911. The attacks had to be tightly coordinated. Four jets took off within 15 minutes of each other at Boston, Dulles, and Newark airports, and roughly two hours later, it was over. The masterminds couldn't afford to take needless chances.

Years ago I saw a local TV news reporter interview a New York mugger about the occupational hazards of his trade. "It's a very, very dangerous trade," the mugger informed the interviewer. "Some of these people are crazy! They fight back! You can get hurt!"

If a freelance New York mugger realized the unpredictable nature of human behavior, surely the pros who pulled this job off must have known the same truth. Yet we are asked to believe that the culprits took four jet airliners, with four sets of crew and four sets of passengers -- armed with (depending on the news reports you read) "knives," "plastic knives" and box cutters. Given the crazy and unpredictable nature of humans, why would they try this bold plan when they were so poorly armed?

A lady's handbag -- given the weight of the contents most women insist on packing -- is an awesome weapon. I know, I have used mine in self defense. Are we to believe that none of the women had the testosterone to knock those flimsy little weapons out of the hijackers' hands? And what of the briefcases most men carry? Thrown, those briefcase can be potent weapons. Your ordinary every-day New York mugger would never take the chances that our culprits took.

Flight attendant Michelle Heidenberger was on board Flight 77. She had been "trained to handle a hijacking. She knew not to let anyone in the cockpit. She knew to tell the hijacker that she didn't have a key and would have to call the pilots. None of her training mattered." ( "On flight 77: 'Our Plane Is Being Hijacked'," The Washington Post, September 12, 2001, pgs. A 1, 11.)

That's right, The Washington Post for once is telling the whole truth. Heidenberger's training didn't matter, the pilots' training didn't matter, the ladies handbags didn't matter, the mens' briefcases didn't matter. The masterminds of Operation 911 knew that whatever happened aboard those flights, the control of the planes was in their hands. Even if the crew and passengers fought back, my hypothesis is that they *could not* have regained control of the planes, for the planes were being controlled by Global Hawk technology.


FLIGHT 77 - "The Plane Was Flown With Extraordinary Skill"

Once again: Operation 911 demanded that the attacks be tightly coordinated. Four jets took off within 15 minutes of each other at Boston, Dulles, and Newark airports, and roughly two hours later, it was over. If we are to believe the story we are being told, the masterminds needed, at an absolute minimum, pilots who could actually fly the planes and who could arrive at the right place at the right time.

American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757, took off from Dulles Airport in northern Virginia at 8:10 a.m. and crashed into the Pentagon at 9:40 a.m. The Washington Post, September 12, says this: "Aviation sources said that the plane was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm, possibly one of the hijackers. Someone even knew how to turn off the transponder, a move that is considerably less than obvious."

According to the article, the air traffic controllers "had time to warn the White House that the jet was aimed directly at the president's mansion and was traveling at a gut-wrenching speed--full throttle.

"But just as the plane seemed to be on a suicide mission into the White House, the unidentified pilot executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver. The plane circled 270 degrees from the right to approach the Pentagon from the west, whereupon Flight 77 fell below radar level, vanishing from controller's screens, the sources said." ("On Flight 77: 'Our Plane Is Being Hijacked'," The Washington Post, September 12, 2001, pgs. 1 & 11)
more...
http://www.rense.com/general18/opp.htm

posted 01-04-2002 09:01 AM            

View Current Signatures - Sign the Petition

To: The U.S. Senate
Petition to the Senate to Investigate Oddities Involving 9/11 Terrorist Attacks

We, the undersigned, do hereby petition the Senate of the United States of America to thoroughly investigate the events surrounding the acts of terrorism that transpired in the United States on September 11, 2001. Such an investigation would include research into the following peculiarities relating to the terrorist attacks on the United States on 9/11:

1.) Thousands of put stock options that were purchased on United and American airlines immediately prior to 9/11/01

2.) Financial transactions totaling more than 100 million dollars that electronically passed through the World Trade Center immediately prior to its destruction on 9/11

3.) Black-box recordings from the four planes which crashed on 9/11

4.) Cell phone calls made by passengers on hijacked flights on 9/11 which never emerged on their cell-phone bills

5.) Interviews of any air-traffic controllers on duty on 9/11

6.) Eyewitness accounts detailing Flight 93's explosion prior to its crashing

7.) Aircraft debris strewn approximately seven miles from the crash site of Flight 93

8.) Unocal's role in its quest to build an oil pipeline across Afghanistan, plans implemented prior to 2001

9.) Carlyle Corporation's role in overseeing Unocal's quest to have an oil pipeline built across Afghanistan, plans implemented prior to 2001

10.) Role of remote-control software technology implemented in 9/11 hijackings and crashes

11.) George W. Bush's possible foreknowledge of the terrorist attacks on 9/11

12.) Role of the Northern Alliance in explosive growth of opium production in Afghanistan after U.S. military intervention

We respectfully petition the Senate to make public the results of this investigation.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned