Posted on 08/29/2002 1:41:13 PM PDT by DrLiberty
September 11 - US Government accused
A Portugal-based investigative journalist has presented THE NEWS with version of the September 11th attacks that has to date failed to attract the attention of the international press. The report, compiled by an independent inquiry into the September 11th, World Trade Centre attack, warns the American public that the government’s official version of events does not stand up to scrutiny.
A group of military and civilian US pilots, under the chairmanship of Colonel Donn de Grand, after deliberating non-stop for 72 hours, has concluded that the flight crews of the four passenger airliners, involved in the September 11th tragedy, had no control over their aircraft.
In a detailed press communiqué the inquiry stated: “The so-called terrorist attack was in fact a superbly executed military operation carried out against the USA, requiring the utmost professional military skill in command, communications and control. It was flawless in timing, in the choice of selected aircraft to be used as guided missiles and in the coordinated delivery of those missiles to their pre-selected targets.”
The report seriously questions whether or not the suspect hijackers, supposedly trained on Cessna light aircraft, could have located a target dead-on 200 miles from take off point. It further throws into doubt their ability to master the intricacies of the instrument flight rules (IFR) in the 45 minutes from take off to the point of impact. Colonel de Grand said that it would be impossible for novices to have taken control of the four aircraft and orchestrated such a terrible act requiring military precision of the highest order.
A member of the inquiry team, a US Air Force officer who flew over 100 sorties during the Vietnam war, told the press conference: “Those birds (commercial airliners) either had a crack fighter pilot in the left seat, or they were being manoeuvred by remote control.”
In evidence given to the enquiry, Captain Kent Hill (retd.) of the US Air Force, and friend of Chic Burlingame, the pilot of the plane that crashed into the Pentagon, stated that the US had on several occasions flown an unmanned aircraft, similar in size to a Boeing 737, across the Pacific from Edwards Air Force base in California to South Australia. According to Hill it had flown on a pre programmed flight path under the control of a pilot in an outside station.
Hill also quoted Bob Ayling, former British Airways boss, in an interview given to the London Economist on September 20th, 2001. Ayling admitted that it was now possible to control an aircraft in flight from either the ground or in the air. This was confirmed by expert witnesses at the inquiry who testified that airliners could be controlled by electro-magnetic pulse or radio frequency instrumentation from command and control platforms based either in the air or at ground level.
All members of the inquiry team agreed that even if guns were held to their heads none of them would fly a plane into a building. Their reaction would be to ditch the plane into a river or a field, thereby safeguarding the lives of those on the ground.
A further question raised by the inquiry was why none of the pilots concerned had alerted ground control. It stated that all pilots are trained to punch a four-digit code into the flight control’s transponder to warn ground control crews of a hijacking - but this did not happen.
During the press conference Captain Hill maintained that the four airliners must have been choreographed by an Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS). This system can engage several aircraft simultaneously by knocking out their on-board flight controls. He said that all the evidence points to the fact that the pilots and their crews had not taken any evasive action to resist the supposed hijackers. They had not attempted any sudden changes in flight path or nose-dive procedures - which led him to believe that they had no control over their aircraft.
THE NEWS, in an attempt to further substantiate the potential veracity of these findings, spoke to an Algarve-based airline pilot, who has more than 20 years of experience in flying passenger planes, to seek his views. Captain Colin McHattie, currently flying with Cathay Pacific, agreed with the independent commission’s findings. However, he explained that while it is possible to fly a plane from the ground, the installation of the necessary equipment is a time-consuming process, and needs extensive planning. THE NEWS will publish a full interview with Captain McHattie in next week’s edition.
The FBI also came in for criticism for the various pieces of contradictory evidence it has published regarding the suspects. Questions are now being asked as to how incorrect information was given out regarding the ID cards of the suspects, and the seat numbers they supposedly occupied after boarding the flights.
None of the suspects named by the FBI appeared on any of the official passenger lists. A further point was how the FBI had managed to retrieve the passport of one of the suspects amid the molten and twisted remains of thousands of tons of steel and rubble brought about by the Twin Towers collapse.
Dr. Paul Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury, and presently Senior Research Fellow at Stamford University, has lent his support to the independent inquiry findings. He also claims that Osama Bin Laden was not responsible for September 11th. The doctor has challenged President Bush to make public the so-called “irrefutable evidence” incriminating Bin Laden.
Colonel Donn de Grand said that if President Bush is lying it would not be the first time that the American people had been mislead by its government. He cited the recently published official government archives describing President Roosevelt’s duplicity in deceiving Americans about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour, which triggered the US entry into WWll.
He also highlighted the role of the country’s government in misleading its citizens in respect of the Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba, and the events that brought about the Spanish American war in the late 19th, century. “Whilst considering who committed this act of war on September 11th,” he said, “albeit Russia, China, an Islamic country or NATO, we must also consider that the enemy may well be within the gates.
“Not for the first time the American public might be being mislead, by those with ulterior motives, into lending its support to a war, this time against Iraq, that has no bearing whatsoever on the interests of the people of the USA.”
So far the mainstream American news media has failed to publish or broadcast any details regarding the independent inquiry. Similarly, the White House, whilst having received a copy of the report, has remained silent on its findings.
The attack was well-planned. I would guess that the hijackers planned from the beginning to kill the pilots as quickly as possible.
Atta shows up on a surveillance camera at an airport that day. (As well as having his name on the original passenger list). We know he was flying somewhere.
If he wasn't on one of those doomed flights, and is still alive, he should notify his family so they don't feel they have to "defend" him any more.
I'm sure someone, somewhere, is trying to apply a scenario just like this to the events of 9/11.
How about this scenario??...
Background:
Intolerance against Muslims is rampant among the pilots of 4 specific planes.
Plot:
In order to kill the vacationing Atta and his friends (and "teach a lesson" to all other radical Muslims) the pilots decide to crash their planes.
We might want to add touches like having a "hate" radio host say a code word over the air that sets off the pilots' frenzy.
Maybe the plot can include Atta and his friends killing the pilots in an unsuccessful attempt to save the planes and the passengers.
Anyone have Oliver Stone's phone number?
I think Carlin's "stiff upper lip" must have spread to his brain.
Nothing is working upstairs.
In a thousand words or more, The Portugal News turns what everyone already knew into a tinfoil hat story worthy of Justin Raimondo (sp?) and adds nothing whatever of value. We were here. We saw what happened.
I give it eleven paranoia points out of ten.
Except for some question of the cause of the crash in PA - whether the hijackers crashed it because they were losing a fight in the cockpit, or whether it was shot down because it was minutes away from D.C. - there is no indication 9/11 was anything other than what it appeared to be. Nothing about 9/11 is inconsistent with Al Quaida's known capabilities and intentions.
Nah...he just took something everybody knew, added some tinfoil hat rumor from both far-left and far-right wingnuts...and VIOLA!! He has a PAYCHECK!!!! (he got paid by the word)
LOL...guess I should have forced myself to read the rest of the article....on second thought...NAAAHHHH
I guess the questions would be, what were the dissimilarities between the aircraft they used and and the 737, and is it possible to bring them into line with a 737? Fuel capacity seems to be the problem. Could it have been solved without being obvious about it, or without witnesses? 
Well...I believe you've given us a good explanation for this hallucinatory article.
Remember the hand held GPS reciever that was found in some Arab's apartment in NYC? First the guy said he never saw it before, then he said it was his...then he said it must belong to his buddy....and that mentally challenged judge let him walk.
It was an aviation radio, not a GPS. And it turns out that it didn't belong to the Arab at all, but an American pilot on the floor below him--and that the hotel rent-a-cop had planted it in the Arab's room so that he could "find" it and be the big hero.
Thanks...after posting my question and continuing on through the replies, I saw your answer to the same question by Howlin. Guess I shoulda read all the replies first and saved some typing :- )
Makes a good movie of the week, but hardly anything substantial here.
A further point was how the FBI had managed to retrieve the passport of one of the suspects amid the molten and twisted remains of thousands of tons of steel and rubble brought about by the Twin Towers collapse.
A good question, to be sure, I've often wondered that myself, but hardly indicative of any kind of "conspiracy". Since only one was found, maybe it was just luck? Maybe.
The entire rest of this article argues for an alternate explaination based on pure conjecture (AWACS system) with no physical evidence to support the presence of such technology on the plane(s). Indeed, the WTC wreckage incinerated whole bodies where literally nothing is left; how can we ever hope to find evidence of an AWACS system on board? Supposing such is clouding the issue, at best.
The argument here is that since the plane didn't: Nosedive, swerve to the left or right, and since the pilots didn't punch in the 4 digit code for hijacking into the transponder, then it MUST have been under someone else's control from the beginning, and therefore the AWACS MUST be there, even though we can never hope to recover it from the "molten and twisted remains of thousands of tons of steel and rubble brought about by the Twin Towers collapse". It MUST be there though, since there's no other POSSIBLE explaination for how the plane could've been brought under control of the terrorists so quickly.
Right?
1. Kick down flimsy door. 2. Overpower pilots before they can even punch in the 4 digit code, much less send plane into nose dive or swerve about. 3. Use training garnered from places like Moussaoui went to (which was for training to fly a JET, not a CESSNA) to fly plane into towers.
Yeah, ONLY possible explaination; this article is so right. < /sarcasm >
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.