Were the four planes remote controlled and had NO hijackers in them at all???
Here's evidence that leads to that conclusion.
Operation
911: NO SUICIDE PILOTS
by nessie October 5 2001, Fri, 5:23pm
by Carol A. Valentine
Curator, Waco
Holocaust Electronic Museum
October 6, 2001--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--
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 flew 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 on September 19, at this
URL:
http://www.itn.co.uk/news/20010424/world/05robotplane.shtm
Then, on September 20, 2001, The Economist published comments from a former boss of British Airways, Robert Ayling:
"On
autopilot into the future"
"Robert Ayling, a former boss of British Airways, suggested in the
Financial Times this week that aircraft could be commandeered from
the ground and controlled remotely in the event of a hijack ..."
(as quoted by KC (kettererkey@home.com)
on alt.current-events.wtc
explosion).
So,
even though the ITN article was published on April 24, in
September, after the 911 crashes, Mr. Ayling is pretending Global
Hawk technology is a thing of the future.
Then the New York Times ran this:
".
. . In addition, the president [President Bush] said he would give
grants to airlines to allow them to develop stronger cockpit doors
and transponders that cannot be switched off from the cockpit.
Government grants would also be available to pay for video monitors
that would be placed in the cockpit to alert pilots to trouble in the
cabin; *** and new technology, probably far in the future, allowing
air traffic controllers to land distressed planes by remote control.'
" *** ("Bush to Increase Federal Role in Security at Airports,"
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.
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-four Americans 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." (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 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, 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 .… 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 (U.S. News an
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 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.
"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: 7:07p.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' rom 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:
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,")
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 <AFJS@webtv.net> 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), 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, 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 Jewish 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.
On the other hand, here is the International Television News article on the Global Hawk:
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."
Carol A. Valentine
President, Public Action, Inc.
Copyright, October, 2001.
May be reproduced for non-commercial purposes.
And More
I write this in response to your request for input on the Puzzle of the
Published Passenger Lists. (See forwarded email below.) I read with
great interest your angle on the "puzzle" we all face.
I had not ever matched the names and numbers on the passenger lists
with the number of people we were told that perished. Highly
interesting, as it points absolutely (to my way of thinking that is) to
the
theory that the jets were manipulated by remote control, using the
Global Hawk methods.
Obviously, if remote interference was used, there was no need to have
any of these supposed Arab hijackers on board ...... this explains the
constant need for it to be proven that these hijackers existed, via the
ridiculous partying antics, notes and flight manuals left visible, etc.
On the other hand, IF Bush wanted to go to war on Afghanistan,
then it was necessary to point the bone at that race ........ therefore
devise this fictitious list. It WAS fictitious because more than one of
the accused showed up alive in another place of employment ! How
easy to implement war, once the hatred was manifested !!
I have read in detail the theory on using the Global Hawk remote
control methods, but there was never an answer to why the Arabs were
constantly being nominated as the hijackers. There has been nothing
that I have come across that combines the two theories .......... here,
I
see that it is crystal clear !! Remote control interference was the
method of ensuring the planes not only hit their targets, but also
ensured that there was no passenger interference to thwart the
attacks. How otherwise would it be possible to have FOUR separate
planes avoid being overthrown by the passengers or crew, especially
seeing as the hijackers were noted as only being armed with plastic
knives, or have any human error come into play to foul the attacks ??
OK .... the fourth plane was supposedly intercepted by passenger
interference. BUT ... is this a true recount of what happened ? Here
is what I see as happening.
The plane that was to be aimed at the White House had a malfunction
in the remote control and to avoid any complications of passengers
talking ..... of course they would relate that there were NO
HIJACKERS present !! I would bet that these passengers had no
idea of the true scenario ........ they weren't being threatened by
hijackers because there were NONE ON BOARD ! The flight
crew were obviously at a loss as to what to do when their controls were
taken over and they had no way of keeping the plane on course, or
landing it. The ability to communicate with the Air Traffic Controllers
would have been removed ......... they were simply stuck on a course
that they could not avoid, but until the last few moments, nobody on
board would have understood their future fate !
All 3 planes .... the 2 that hurtled into the WTC Towers and the
third into the Pentagon ....... all, in my opinion, were just remotely
guided to hit these targets. How else can it be explained that 3
pilots,
who would be under HUGE DURESS, especially knowing that
within a short space of time they would be killing themselves, not make
a mistake ? OK ... one of the planes apparently went very slightly off
target, but this was quickly corrected and it still hit, although not
quite
dead-on ! No matter, because the hidden bombs within the base of
the WTC Towers attended to the total demolition anyway. The aim
of the planes was to hit the targets and remove all evidence. This was
successful ...... all on board were killed. The only answers would
have come from the passengers or flight crew, but all communications
had been prevented. What about the 'phone calls from some of the
passengers ? What REAL evidence do we have that these were true
accounts ? Also, the passengers obviously knew that there was
something drastically wrong, although did they know exactly what ?
Who was it who told us that the hijackers carried plastic knives ? Who
was it who told us the number of Arab hijackers present on each plane
?
As to the 4th plane ....... due to hit the White House. Well, there
must have been a fault in the remote apparatus to cause it to go off
target, or maybe the flight crew somehow managed to intercept it. I
have read accounts that it has been proven that this plane was shot
out of the sky. This was necessary again as ALL EVIDENCE
must be destroyed ! The story of the passengers gaining control
sounds feasible, but what caused it to hit the ground with such an
explosion that everything, including the indestructible black box, be
totally destroyed beyond any recognition ? Make sense to you ?
The jigsaw puzzle is complete, as I see it. Very simply put, here are
the points :
* All 4 planes were remotely controlled.
* None of the 4 planes had a single hijacker onboard, Arab or
otherwise.
* All evidence, including human evidence has been totally destroyed
and so there are no factual answers to be given.
* A 5th plane was set off as a decoy several days later, containing an
Arab hijacker. Fancy seeing him get caught so easily, when 4 in a
space of an hour or so were successful ! Concretes the theory of the
Arab terrorists though.
* There is now anger and hatred washing all over the American
citizens. Destroy these Arab terrorists who committed such heinous
crimes ! Of course, the immediate suspect, Osama bin Laden, has all
eyes on him. But, hasn't it also been said that he is another "patsy"
as
per the JFK scenario ?
* The war that has been desired for some time now can legitimately be
implemented and the REAL reasons for taking Afghanistan are now
almost exposed .... to gain control over the hugely rich oil fields that
have been out of reach to the US.
* How much easier it is to take this country with the support of the
rest of the world, with everyone incited into a frenzy over the shocking
terrorist activity !
* Cap off the success by quickly introducing a Bill to remove the rights
of all citizens .... of course, only temporarily whilst freedom is again
restored. This must be done to ensure the complete safety of all US
citizens !
* In case there is too much opposition, the threat of biological warfare
is lurking ominously on the horizon. A couple of deaths have already
occurred ... just as a warning of what can be done ! The chemtrailing
that has been going for for some time now has allowed this process to
be finetuned so that it is now merely a matter of a few instructions in
the right place and Whammo !!! Goodbye citizens !
Therein lies my Theories !
Thanks
Love
Sha
Namasté:
I honour in you the divinity
that I honour within myself
and I know we are one.
"Problems cannot be solved at the same level of
consciousness that created them."
-- Albert Einstein
From: "Gary North & Bill Bonner" <RealityC@agoramail.net>
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 1:10 PM
Subject: The Perplexing Puzzle of the Published Passenger Lists
Gary North's REALITY CHECK
Number 82 October 12, 2001
THE PERPLEXING PUZZLE OF THE PUBLISHED PASSENGER LISTS
Maybe you like puzzles. I hope so. I don't like
them. I regard them as a challenge, not a game. I avoid
them because, when I cannot find a solution, my mind won't
stop working on them. Then I get very frustrated. So, I
avoid magic shows, crossword puzzles, and similar brain-
twisters.
Yet I am also a historian with a Ph.D. Historians are
trained to solve puzzles with insufficient pieces.
Historians never have all of the evidence that they would
like in order to come up with a coherent explanation of
what happened. They always want another piece in the
puzzle before they go into print. (Of course, once they go
into print, they will tend to reject any newly discovered
piece that messes up their version of the completed
puzzle.) At some point, they are supposed to come to a
conclusion. They are supposed to make a judgment about
what happened.
I am presently stuck. So, I am sending out this
report. Maybe there is someone my list who can get me
unstuck.
Years ago, I saw a movie, "My Cousin Vinnie." Vinnie
was studying to be a lawyer. He wasn't a good classroom
student, but he had a unique ability. He could figure out
how things fit together. Show him a magic trick, and he
could tell you how the magician did it. Tell him a story
with a missing link, and he could identify where the
missing link was, and maybe what it was. He could solve
puzzles.
I am trying to locate Vinnie.
This puzzle is no game. The United States has gone to
war on the basis of one solution to this puzzle. We have
not yet been told what this solution is.
The puzzle begins with the crash of four airliners.
We must work our way backward from this.
To do this, I decided to begin with official
information that was published 16 days after the attack.
To work my way backwards, I first leaped forward.
ALLEGED HIJACKERS
On September 27, the Associated Press released a story
about the hijackers. The version that I read, published in
the ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION, referred to these men as
alleged hijackers. I shall do the same.
I located this article by using www.daypop.com.
Daypop is the most complete archive of recent news stories
on the Web. Daypop allows you to search for stories that
are up to four weeks old.
I searched for "passenger list" and "hijackers."
Daypop produced three pages of links -- not that many.
Almost all of these links were to the same AP story, which
was published by numerous on-line news sources. Here is
the version I used.
http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/terrorism/nation/0927hijackerlist.html
The headline reads: "FBI releases updated list of
alleged hijackers." Above the headline is a link that
says, "Click here to see 19 suspected hijackers." I
clicked it. A large box popped up. It took a while for
the photos to appear. There are 19 photos, along with
names. The names appear to be Middle Eastern -- Arabs.
Most of the men look like Arabs, although a few might pass
as Mexicans. Only one of them looked vaguely like a
European.
They are divided into four lists, according to which
flight they are said to have boarded. There were five men
on American Airlines Flight 77, five on AA Flight 11, five
on United Airlines Flight 175, and four on UA Flight 93 --
the flight that crashed in Pennsylvania.
Let's return to the AP story itself. We read the
following:
As Attorney General John Ashcroft launched a
"national neighborhood watch" with the release of
the photos, FBI Director Robert Mueller
acknowledged that questions remained about
whether an accompanying list contained the true
names of the 19.
"What we are currently doing is determining
whether, when these individuals came to the
United States, these were their real names or
they changed their names for use with false
identification in the United States," Mueller
said.
The FBI director said there was evidence that one
or more of the hijackers had had contacts with
al-Qaida, the network associated with Osama bin
Laden, the exiled Saudi millionaire who is the
Bush administration's top suspect in the attacks.
This story indicates that, as of September 27, the FBI
was not certain whether these suspects had used their real
names. The remainder of the story listed each of their
names, along with possible aliases. The aliases all look
like Arab names.
I have discovered no additional information released
to the general public regarding these suspects.
I now backtrack to the morning of September 11. The
issue that I am trying to deal with is airline security.
To draw rational conclusions about how the alleged
hijackers accomplished their acts of terrorism, we must
begin with airline security.
The United States has now gone to war because of a
breakdown somewhere in airline security procedures. Yet
nobody in government is blaming the specific airlines.
They are blaming the procedures. This is why I want you
mentally to go through the procedures with me. I have hit
a brick wall. I am asking you to help me knock it down. I
will show you how I went through the procedures mentally.
See if you can figure out which step I missed.
Step One is check-in.
STEP ONE: CHECK-IN
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.
I began with American Airlines, Flight 11. This was
the plane that crashed into the north tower of the World
Trade Center. I began with the list of passengers. This
was not difficult. The passenger lists for all four planes
are posted on CNN's Website.
Click on the link. This is a long link for the
formatting of my newsletter. If it is broken on your
screen, you will have to paste it into your Web browser's
address box. This will take two steps.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html
The CNN page says that there were 92 people on board.
I suggest that you print out the list. Part of my exercise
was to count the names of the passengers. Besides, you
never know when a Web page will disappear.
Do you have the print-out in front of you? Count the
names. I get 86 names, including the crew. But the CNN
page says 92 people were on board.
None of the 86 names is an Arab name. This is very,
very strange. First, how did the CNN list-compiler know
that there were 92 people on board? Five of them are not
listed. Second, how did anyone get on board who was not on
the list of ticketed passengers?
To get onto the flight legally, each passenger had to
have a ticket with his or her name on it. Each passenger
had to present a photo ID to the check-in agent. The
check-in agent was supposed to look at the picture and the
person, and then make a judgment. Was it the same person?
If the mandated procedure was followed, the check-in agent
decided that the ticket's name, the photo ID's name, the
photo, and the ID-holder's face all matched. If there was
any doubt, the check-in agent was supposed to ask for some
other form of identification. If there was none, the
person was not allowed to board the plane.
We are told by the United States government that five
Arabs somehow got through this initial screening procedure.
How did they do this? This is puzzle number one regarding
Flight 11. Puzzle number two has to do with the incomplete
passenger list.
Airlines keep a list of passengers on board. This is
for insurance purposes, should there be a crash. It is
also for the purpose of notifying relatives after a crash.
It is also for the purpose of in-cabin screening. "Has
everyone paid who is on the plane?" And, finally, is there
a hijacker on board?
On American Airlines Flight 11, there were no Arab
names on the passenger list. So, how does the government
know who the hijackers were?
Why does CNN's Web page list 92 dead, when there are
only 86 name listed? Who was the non-Arab?
I have seen nothing about government accusations
against American Airlines for substandard check-in security
procedures. In fact, I have seen nothing about the
discrepancy between the published names and the published
numbers regarding how many people were on board.
Let's go to American Airlines Flight 77. This plane
crashed into the Pentagon.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html
We are told that 64 people were on board. I count 56,
including 6 crew members. There is no explanation offered
for the absence of 8 names. There is no Arab name on this
list.
Something is definitely wrong here.
What about United Airlines? Did the company's
employees follow the same check-in procedure? Presumably,
they did. I checked Flight 175, which crashed into the
south tower.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua175.victims.html
There were 56 people on board, according to CNN's
summation. I printed out the list. I counted the names.
Once again, they don't add up. The summation says there
were 2 pilots, 7 flight attendants, and 56 passengers. I
counted the names. The total is 56 -- the number
attributed to the passengers. Nine names are missing.
None of the listed names is Arab.
This leaves United Flight 93, which crashed in
Pennsylvania. It had 45 people on board, according to the
summation.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua93.victims.html
Again, there is a discrepancy. Only 33 names appear
on the list. A dozen names are missing. Among the missing
names are the four Arabs who allegedly hijacked the plane.
So, the published names in no instance match the total
listed for the number of people on board. CNN really
should offer an explanation for this discrepancy.
In no case does an Arab name appear on a list, let
alone one of the alleged hijackers.
How did CNN fail to count the names accurately? Did
the airlines not provide the full list of each flight's
names? Perhaps so.
This raises the next question. How did the airlines
know how many people were on each of these flights? The
airlines must have had a list for each flight. What
possible reason could they have had for not releasing the
full lists? Finally, why are there no Arabs listed on any
of these lists, let alone the specific Arabs identified by
the Attorney General and the head of the FBI in an
Associated Press story?
I do not understand how 19 Arabs could have evaded the
check-in procedures. I also do not understand why every
passenger's name is not on the published lists.
I have seen no other source of the passenger lists.
(Another search word: "manifests.") It has now been over a
month since the attack. Where is a complete list? I don't
know. Where is a complete list of all four flights that
has the alleged hijackers' names on it? I don't know.
Finally, where is some enterprising reporter who is
trying to get answers? I don't know.
What about Step Two?
STEP TWO: ON-BOARD SEATING
There were multiple terrorists in the cabin of each
plane when the plane left the ground. They did not get
there through the ticket-screening system. Or did they?
If they did, then how?
I assume here -- again, maybe I am wrong -- that they
got there through another entrance. Maybe they were part
of the food service team.
These were all cross-country flights. The planes were
loaded with lots of fuel, which is why they were selected:
flying bombs. On cross-country flights, passengers still
are given meals, not just pretzels and soft drinks. The
number of meals is supposed to match the number of people
on board, or at least come close.
Flight attendants have a list of passengers and their
assigned seats. This is to enable them to identify
passengers who have requested special meals, such as kosher
meals. It is also to enable them to identify people who
have not bought a ticket. Flight attendants are supposed
to know who has been assigned to which seat.
It is September 11. Here is the situation: there are
an extra five men on three flights, and four extra men on
Flight 93.
You have already seen the photos of these men. If I
had been a flight attendant, and I saw five extra men who
looked like they did -- young, Arabic, and without tickets
-- I would have asked them to explain why they were on
board. I would not have assumed that they belonged there.
Are we to assume that on four separate flights, none
of the flight attendants noticed that something was wrong?
Are we to believe that they failed to notice that five or
four extra passengers were on board who were not on the
passenger list? Furthermore, these men looked as though
they were of one ethnic group. They all had Arabic
accents, I presume.
Why did the flight attendants ignore all this? There
is no indication from the government that these men took
over all four planes while the planes were still on the
ground. Even if they had, the pilots would not have taken
off if there were hijackers on board. They would have
waited to hear the demands, and the demand to "take off
now" would have been refused by at least one flight crew --
and I believe all four.
We need a theory of the co-ordinated hijacking that
rests on a plausible cause-and-effect sequence that does
not assume the complete failure of both the check-in
procedures and the on-board seating procedures on four
separate flights on two separate airlines. If the
explanation does rely on a theory of check-in procedural
breakdown, where is the evidence?
I have heard no such theory from the government. I
have heard no such theory from the news media. In fact, I
have heard neither the government nor the mainstream media
even mention these perplexing problems. Perhaps you have.
If so, I would like to see the Web link or a reference to
the newspaper or other source where these matters have been
discussed.
I don't mean this or that discussion forum devoted to
conspiracy theories. I mean the mainstream press. It is
very peculiar that the mainstream media and the government
have not offered a detailed theory of how the hijackers
evaded both the check-in procedures and the pre-takeoff
seating procedures.
Perhaps some airline industry publication has dealt
with this. If so, I would like to see the document.
I would also like to see passenger lists that include
every passenger's name. I want to see 19 Arab names on
these complete lists.
If these updated lists are ever released, I want to
see that they match the original lists that were not
released immediately. I want to know that any new names
have not been added retroactively. I want evidence -- from
travel agencies' records and credit card records -- that
everyone on each plane's updated passenger list actually
bought a ticket.
Is this to much to ask? So far, apparently it is.
CONSPIRACY THEORIES
Conspiracy theories are a dime a dozen. Well, not all
of them. We have gone to war based on one of them. But I
don't see how anyone can make an accurate judgment about
who was behind the attacks until he has a plausible
explanation of how the hijackers got onto the planes and
were not removed.
I am not interested in any theory about who did it
until I have a plausible explanation for how he did it.
The key to discovering who planned this attack is
inescapably tied to the procedures used by his agents to do
it.
I don't see how they did it, yet I know that three
planes crashed into highly visible targets. A fourth plane
had veered off course, and it seems plausible that it was
part of a co-ordinated attack. This has yet to be proven,
but it seems plausible.
We keep hearing about plastic knives and box cutters.
But we hear nothing about how these 19 men took plastic
knives and box cutters onto four planes, and no one noticed
that anything was amiss until the planes were in the air.
So, you tell me. How did 19 Arabs get onto these
planes and then remain inconspicuous until the planes were
aloft?
CONCLUSION
I have no conclusion. I told you this at the
beginning. I am stuck.
I am looking for Vinnie. Maybe you're Vinnie. After
you have drawn your own conclusion, and it seems
reasonable, let me know.
But before you do, please run your theory by someone
whose judgment you trust. See if that person thinks your
theory is plausible. See if he or she can pick holes in
it. Don't make me your first guinea pig. I want to be at
least second. Third would be even better.
We need to get the division of intellectual labor
working here. As the Bible says, "Two are better than one;
because they have a good reward for their labour. For if
they fall, the one will lift up his fellow: but woe to him
that is alone when he falleth; for he hath not another to
help him up" (Ecclesiastes 4:9-10).
If you have no logical explanation, join the club.
Maybe you know a potential Vinnie. Use your FORWARD button
to send him or her a copy of this report. Ask for
feedback.
Notice to all would-be Vinnies: with each
forwarding, e-mail software adds either a carrot
-- this is a carrot: > -- or a vertical line.
This pushes the text to the right. If you have
received this after several forwardings, the text
may be difficult to read. You can get a fresh
copy by sending an e-mail to puzzle@kbot.com, or
click this link and then click SEND:
mailto:puzzle@kbot.com
Somewhere out there is a person who can solve this
puzzle. There has to be a solution. I just don't know
what it is.
In future issues of this newsletter, I will report on
any conclusions that look plausible to me.
If you're not yet a subscriber, and you want to
read what some of these conclusions are, you can
subscribe for free. Send an e-mail to this
address: unstuck@kbot.com, or click on the link
and then click the SEND button:
mailto:unstuck@kbot.com
You will receive a welcome letter from me within
a few seconds. It will explain what my
newsletter is all about.
______________________
P.S. Send your proposed solution to solution@kbot.com You
will receive a short autoresponder-generated letter telling
you that I have received it. This way, you will know that
your solution got through to me.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
To subscribe to Reality Check go to:
http://www.dailyreckoning.com/GetReality.cfm
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
If you enjoy Reality Check and would like to read more
of Gary's writing please visit his website:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
If you'd like to suggest Reality Check to a friend,
please forward this letter to them or point them to:
http://www.dailyreckoning.com/GetReality.cfm