Operation
911: NO SUICIDE PILOTS
By Carol A. Valentine
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: 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. Here
is an excerpt from that article:
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 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...
[NOTE: two of the aircraft involved
in the 911 crashes were Boeing 757s,
two were Boeing 767s]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.
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. [Note of Jan. 28, 2002:
For an historical overview of automated
plane landing systems, see "Thwarting
skyjackings for the ground," by Alan Staats,
posted to FACSNET, October 2, 2001, at:
http://www.facsnet.org/issues/specials/terrorism/aviation.php3
or http://www.public-action.com/911/facsnet/aviation.php3
.
The author states: "Controlling the aircraft
from the ground is nothing new.
The military has been flying obsolete
high performance fighter aircraft as target
drones since the 1950s. In fact,
NORAD (the North American Air Defense
Command) had at its disposal a number
of U.S. Air Force General Dynamics F-106
Delta Dart fighter aircraft confingured
to be remotely flown into combat as early
as 1959 under the auspices of a program
known as SAGE. These aircraft could
be started, taxied, taken off, flown into
combat, fight, and return to a landing
entirely by remote control, with only
human intervention needed being to fuel
and re-arm them."]
With this technology, we could have a
"suicide" airplane fly into a building
without a suicide pilot. Robotics
and remote control technologies have 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. Read the story
at the USS Liberty Memorial Website, at
http://www.ussliberty.com/ When four
US fighter jets from a nearby aircraft
carrier came to protect the Liberty, President
Johnson, through Defense Secretary Robert
McNamara, ordered the jets NOT to come
to the Liberty's aid. Johnson reported
said he did not care who was killed or
what happened to the ship, he just didn't
want his allies embarassed. http://157.238.204.10/lewis.txt
Mirror of this page: http://www.public-action.com/911/USSLiberty-lewis.txt
The Israeli attack was allowed to cotinue.
Thirty-fourAmericans were killed and 171
wounded, thanks to the treason of an American
president and defense seretary. 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.
In
other words, US allies and people within
the US military establishment are not
opposed to killing Americans, given the
right goal. [Note of Jan 28, 2002:
In January, this author, Carol A. Valentine,
discovered the Operation Northwoods documents
were counterfeit. That is, they
had not been produced by the Pentagon,
as claimed by James Bamford in "Body of
Secrets". See: "Operation Northwoods:
The Counterfeit."] 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) 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 Journal
[Maryland] 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
.S 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
(US News and 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," The 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
The Christian Science Monitor story
discussed below, "Communication 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
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.
Flight 11 crashed into the north tower
of the WTC at 8:45 a.m.
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." (The
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 far 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.
Lyrics & Chord Charts
