| HOME | |||||||||
| WTC: The Real Story 5 | |||||||||
| Down at the bottom of the Bargain Bin, in the pulp fiction section of the local charity shop, I can find dime-a-dozen trashy novels with plenty of "My God, My God..." dialogue. But the REAL world of actual airline stewardess has people, not cartoon dumb blondes. They KNOW what New York looks like from the air ... She might have said something credible like: "Jesus Christ! We're gonna hit Manhattan." But no. "I see buildings...." (...and, wait for it...) ..pause.. "...water." Check out that pregnant pause in every publication of the quote. Does that pause feel right to you? Not to me. The whole thing feels like a ham-fisted effort designed to make us believe certain things. - Tall Tales of the Wag Movie It is possible, however, that the part about the passengers calling on their cell phones has some truth (they were told to call so as to provide support for the soon-to-be-released official story; see below in Section 5) - but not the part which has one of the passengers, Mark Bingham, calling his mother, saying "Hi Mom, this is Mark Bingham." Note also that in none of the alleged phone calls is there any mention of hijackers of Middle Eastern origin; no-one said "Arabs have hijacked the plane". Why not? Because there were no Arab hijackers. 4. What Actually Happened In October 2001 two articles appeared on the web which provided the first clues to what really happened. One was Carol Valentine's "Operation 911: NO SUICIDE PILOTS". This article drew attention to the possibility of remote control of a large jet aircraft. That this technology exists is public knowledge. It was developed by Northrop Grumman for use in Global Hawk, an automated American military jet with the wingspan of a Boeing 737. (For further details about Global Hawk see Operation 911: NO SUICIDE PILOTS.) Since it is possible to control a Boeing 757 or 767 by means of remote control, might not the jets which hit the Twin Towers and the Pentagon (assuming that more than one did) have been remotely controlled? In which case there would be no need to maintain the improbable hypothesis that the four jets were simultaneously hijacked by nineteen on-board Arab terrorists. The other article discussing the possibility of remote control of Boeing aircraft was Joe Vialls' "Home Run: Electronically Hijacking the World Trade Center Attack Aircraft". In the mid-seventies ... two American multinationals collaborated with the Defense Advanced Projects Agency (DARPA) on a project designed to facilitate the remote recovery of hijacked American aircraft. [This technology] ... allowed specialist ground controllers to ... take absolute control of [a hijacked plane's] 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. ... [This was] 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. - Joe Vialls: Home Run: Electronically Hijacking the World Trade Center Attack Aircraft But there's a problem with this theory: Although the technology for the remote control of a Boeing jetliner certainly exists, and could be installed (if it is not already standard) on four Boeings, getting all four remotely controllable planes to take off within an hour of each other would not be easy, and would require more people with insider knowledge than is advisable (the more people involved the more chance there is of a mistake, or of information being leaked). Not only would United Airlines and American Airlines personnel be needed to coordinate the plane assignments but also four different teams of remote controllers would be necessary, one for each remotely hijacked plane. Considering the stakes involved in an operation which was intended to kill thousands of U.S. citizens, there could be no room for error. What was needed was a fool-proof plan, and the remote hijacking of four planes is a scenario with too many possibilities for something to go wrong. The actual plan which was implemented is amazingly simple when it is finally understood, and it was carried out almost (but not completely) without a hitch. It was revealed to Carol Valentine by an informant (as recounted in 9-11: The Flight of the Bumble Planes). To put it briefly, a plot was hatched, not by Arabs, but by so-called Americans (agents of the civilian "state security and intelligence" agencies and bureaus such as the CIA, top-ranking officers within the U.S. Air Force and high-level officials within the U.S. Administration), perhaps with Israeli involvement: to take control of four civilian airliners to carry out attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon causing huge loss of life to make it appear that these airliners were used to carry out the attacks to eliminate the passengers on the airliners who would not be involved in the operation except as reluctant witnesses to blame these attacks on "Arab terrorists" and to use this as a pretext to launch military campaigns against "enemies of America" in the Middle East and in Asia. What happened on September 11th was very likely something close to this (there are two or three variations, as noted below): Three planes had been made ready by U.S. military personnel (possibly from NORAD), capable of being controlled remotely, with no-one on board: A business jet loaded with high explosives. An F-16 jet fighter armed with a missile. A Boeing 767, painted up to look like a United Airlines jet (call this "Pseudo Flight 175"). In the alternative theory one of the first two planes is replaced by an AGM-86C cruise missile capable of being fired from a B-52 and of flying to its target under GPS-guidance, and able upon impact to generate heat of over 2,000°C. Or perhaps cruise missiles are used instead of both of the first two planes. Cont .. |
|||||||||
| PART 6 | |||||||||
| BACK TO '9-11' | |||||||||