Wednesday, October 31, 2001
Commercial jets as guided missiles
Sponsored Links
by
AP story
Brussels
7 Oct 2001
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"At Washington's request, NATO will soon deploy surveillance aircraft for anti-terrorist operations in the United States in response to the attacks on New York and Washington, NATO officials said Sunday, an unprecedented use of foreign military forces to defend the U.S. homeland."
The assembled group of pilots debated why we would ask for foreign forces to fly AWACS over our sovereign territory when we have a fleet of 33 of them, of which 28 are stationed in Oklahoma.
The debate also centered on whether such NATO surveillance aircraft were already here prior to 11 September. Could one of them have commandeered the four airliners? There seems to be wide discrepancies between what the Federal government is proclaiming -- and their media moguls reporting -- as opposed to the calm and reasoned and rational views of those men who fly the planes and defend the nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
This writer has been a general aviation pilot since 1946. 1 have flown a variety of single engine prop aircraft since, and installed an FAA-approved airstrip here on my farm in 1980.
Two local pilots periodically joined me for short hops; one, a Madison County lawyer, a graduate of the Air Force Academy, who flew for the Air Force before coming home to practice law. The other, Kent Hill, who lives with his wife, Carol, on a farm close to mine, is an American Airlines captain assigned to the European route. He was a lifelong friend of "Chic" Burlingame. They were graduates of the Naval Academy and flew F-4 Phantoms in Vietnam. Both left the Navy 28 years ago and joined American Airlines. Both planned to retire in 2002.
Chic was the captain of AA flight 77, a Boeing 757, which departed Washington Dulles for Los Angeles at 8:10 am on I I September, with 58 passengers and a crew of 6. Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon at 9:41 am.
"We were totally trained on the old type of hijack," Capt Hill said, "where you treat the hijacker cordially, punch a 4-digit code into your transponder to alert ground control you're being hijacked, and then get him where he wants to go, set the plane safely on the ground and let them deal with it on the ground. However, this is a totally new situation... Not one of the planes alerted ground control that they were being hijacked." How come?
"The fact is, all the transponders were turned off on the doomed flights virtually at the same time." Look at their departure times -- two from Logan (Boston), one from Newark, another from Dulles (Washington DC) -- all between 8 am and 8:15. "Shortly after climb- out to flight level, their transponders are de- activated.. (they are no longer a blip on the radar screens).
This is something that really needs to be looked into. The only reason we turn them off is so they don't interfere with ground systems when we land." (Note: Transponders identify a particular aircraft in flight on the radar screens of FAA flight controllers located throughout the country. Various codes are punched into the transponder, one displaying, "I am being hijacked.")
He is convinced none of the pilots had control of their aircraft when they were flown into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The question then becomes, who was really in control? "Even if I had a gun at my head, I'd never fly a plane into a building. I'd try to put it in anywhere -- a field or a river --and I'd be searing the hell out of them (the hijackers) by flying upside down first," Hill said. In fact, the pilot has the best weapon in his hand when threatened with imminent death by a hijacker, namely, the airplane. Another airline pilot stated. "On hearing a major scuffle in the cabin, the pilot should have inverted the aircraft and the hijackers end up with broken necks."
That none of the four pilots executed such a maneuver points toward the fact that none of them had control of their aircraft, but had been overridden by an outside force, which was flying them by remote control.
As an old and not so bold pilot, I became more convinced that the four commercial jets were choreographed by a "conductor" from a central source, namely an airborne warning and control system (AWACS).
They have the electronic capability to engage several aircraft simultaneously, knock out their on-board flight controls by EMP (electro-magnetic pulsing) and assume command and remote control of these targeted aircraft.
...
(Donn de Grand M, a retired Army colonel, is author of A Window on America, Confessions of an Arms Peddler and his latest, Barbarians Inside the Gates.)
In short, many others like me believe that by utilizing this powerful medium to better understand the news, we can somehow contribute to stopping this evil spiral encircling our world today.
I do not, by any means, condone the acts of those who commit crimes. I do not condone either the bureaucratic powers that restrict our civil freedoms, which have often been faught for through centuries of war and deprivation.
Furthermore, I cannot support a political entity that decides what information I legitimately have the right to access. This is where, I believe, the Internet can be a great medium for providing most of us with the liberty to access information.
| 2005-11-20 02:01:44 |
Design Engineer |
Hello All,
I am an electronics design engineer. At one time myself and two colleagues owned and operated a
scientific military contracting firm...most of our
work was DARPA/DoD. However that may be, it is my
opinion that this crap people are spouting about
the airliners having been remotely piloted is just
that...CRAP. I worked as a contractor for one company, we expended YEARS and millions of dollars trying enable a small twin engine cessna to be
flown remotely, lots of crashes. Very difficult task, lest alone a heavy lift aircraft. Part of the problem is science-fiction movies, everybody thinks if its in the movies, it is reality!!
I remember, it was 9/11/2001, a freind had sent me
an e-mail talking about a newsjournalist who claimed that the airplanes had been 'remotely-piloted' into the WTC. Curious, I visited the website, and sure enough, there was
an apparently syndicated internet newspaper article complete with pictures and story. In the
professionally written article was the claim that
there "no Arabs on the planes". Myself having just
completed a contract with a company, (actually
know something about the subject) to instrument and modify an airplane to enable it to be flown remotely, I came to the conclusion that the author was clueless regarding the difficulty to remotely control a heavy-lift aircraft. Its not something that one simply embeds a 'gadget' into a 'transponder' as certain internet disinformation babblers would have the gullible internet public believe.
Having read this author's article, I discovered that he had been a journalist for a Toronto Canadian newspaper, but that he had been fired for writing
seditious anti-Canadian-pro-Arab articles and participating in violence-centered pro-Arab social
organizations. Unfortunately I do not remember his
name or the paper?? I searched the internet using a directory pay-per-click service, I think it was go$gle.com? Anyway, I found the authors home page...it was an empty white website page.
So I hit the 'veiw-page-source' button on my webbrowser, SURPRISE!!! a hidden clickable bitmap
in the lower left corner, painted in white letters against a white background...most dummies would
have simply vectored away, not seeing anything.
I cut and past the URL vector into webbrowser URL field and voila!! a pro-Arab, anti-Canadian, anti-USA, anti-Israel, anti-French, anti-Russian,
anti-just about every mother-fucking non-Muslim
country in the world website. And, it had various
instructions for thwarting US-Israelie weapon-systems used by Israel to surgically asassinate political targets in Palistine. I wrote all this up and sent it into the FBI Terrorist Tip Line. Listen you morons out there, for what ever the reasons, good, bad or otherwise, there are people out there dreaming up ways to KILL you and your family and friends. THAT'S THE TRUTH.
Those airplanes were full of people just like you
and me, in fact I could have been on one of those
airliners, I do much traveling as an engineer. The
real conspiracy is WHY DID ALL THIS BULLSHIT HAPPEN? Why is America unsafe to walk the streets
at night? I remember when cars did not have
door locks or ignition locks on them and one
could leave a bicycle on the beach, for a week...
the worst that would happen, someone would cover it with a tarp (a black guy in Biloxi), and a note
to please return the tarp.
The answer is Love, the only thing that works, everywhere.
| 2005-10-09 21:10:05 |
Robin Good |
With the knowledge gained in these four years I must say you are probably right about the EMP, as such an electromagnetic pulse destroys electronics rather than allow you to take control.
There is however a technology developed decades ago that allows to take over airliners remotely in case of hijacking, which may have been used in the 911 crashes. Please see:
http://www.geocities.com/mknemesis/homerun.html
Although it looks to me like the original airplanes were not the ones crashing into the buildings... there are in my humble opinion many layers of deception at work on that one.
| 2005-10-09 19:57:40 |
Anonymous |
My question to the writer of this article deals with EMP's. You make the assertion that an AWACS used an EMP to disable the controls of the commercial airliners and then took remote control of the planes. Your lack of knowledge on EMP's is your downfall on this hypothesis mainly because it is not possible. For hardware to survive an EMP it must be shielded and allow no external energy within the system. For them to control the jet externally after using an EMP is not possible being that it would have to be satelite/radio controlled which would mean it would have to allow external energy within the system. Basically the EMP you claim AWACS or anyone else could have used to fry the manual controls of the airliners would have also fried the remote control capabilities. It is sad to see assumptions by those who think they know more than they do and give wild theories but don't have the information to back up there theories.
| 2004-04-30 05:07:44 |
Carl Whelan |
Your article states, 'Another airline pilot stated. "On hearing a major scuffle in the cabin, the pilot should have inverted the aircraft and the hijackers end up with broken necks."
That none of the four pilots executed such a maneuver points toward the fact that none of them had control of their aircraft, but had been overridden by an outside force, which was flying them by remote control.' Without denying or confirming the plausibility of your arguments, I am curious as to whether this tactic has ever been used in a hijack situation and if this inversion maneouvre is taught to airline pilots, in the US or the UK, as a suitable response. If the response required by training is to "treat the hijacker cordially...and let them deal with it on the ground", as you say, and I am certain that the pilots were not in control of the planes at the time of impact, it does not automatically follow that they were being remotely piloted. In all likelihood, the pilots were made to switch off the transponders under threat of extreme violence to a passenger or crew member. They then continued to pacify the hijackers (to get the plane on the ground), unaware of their true intentions, until close to target and the controls of the plane were taken, again probably by extreme violence. I do not rule out a possible conspiracy and there are certainly very many unanswered questions surrounding 9/11. With respect, I don't think this is one of them.
