Remote Control Planes: Hardcore evidence?

[John White]

I found this article browsing away on 'tinternet

For a while now I've been hearing about this remote control ability on these planes, but I havnt seen a serious body of evidance to show that this system exists and what its capabilities are: its often mentioned but taken as an article of faith: it seems credible, but I dont know for sure: seems like time to find out. The bottom of the article does give research tips

Can anyone help bring data forward?

Has anyone already looked at this in depth?

I'll do some digging myself, but obviously, its best to ask!

[John White]

I havnt been able to free up the time to get into this area yet, but please consider this post a *bump*, I'm hopefull other members might have more to bring forward on this Q

[dry kleaner]

Hey John
I hope you are well.
I did a search on the Boeing and DARPA site and could not find much. However Boeing do seem to be the main people producing Unmanned aircraft through their Skunk works facility at (Yes ) Area 51.
These are their latest publicly available projects.

http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/gallery/images/military/x-45/x45p hotos.html

The Boeing Humming Bird (Latest remote control aircraft)
http://www.boeing.com/ids/advanced_systems/hummingbird.html

After a Google search of 'Remote Control 757' I found this article. The links have all been removed from the web, I wonder why???

[dry kleaner]

Sorry I'll be more selective after this, however its worth a skim through. This exceding software limits has been mentioned as far back as 2002.

[dry kleaner]

http://www.sysplan.com/Radar/FTS

[dry kleaner]

Hi All check this site out if you have not already. NASA have a crash reseach facility which in 1984 crashed a remote controled Boeing 707.
Amazing pics below.

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/CID/Small/index.html


Remember page 10 point 8 a in the Northwoods documents.

Peace and love

DK

[John White]

Hmmm...Cabin decompression would solve the problem of attempted Pilot override fairly simply

[GEFBASS]

Not sure if this could be relevent.


http://www.aviationtoday.com/cgi/av/show_mag.cgi?pub=av&mon=0602&file= 0602transponders.htm

Quote off the web page above...

"Not making the headlines was the Department of Transportation’s (DoT’s) recommendation No. 16: to create a task force "to develop modifications to transponders to assure continuous transmission of a hijack signal, even if the flight deck-selected code or function is turned off." Air traffic control (ATC) tapes from Sept. 11 revealed that identification and altitude information ceased from the hijacked aircraft after the aircraft made dramatic deviations from their approved courses. Thus it became apparent that the perpetrators had disconnected or disabled the aircraft’s transponders

The Mode S transponders aboard Boeing 767 and 757 aircraft, such as those used on 9/11 as "flying bombs," deliver aircraft identification and altitude and can supplement FAA’s radar by "providing ATC and traffic alert collision avoidance system (TCAS)-equipped aircraft the ability to determine position and heading information," according to DoT. "A lesson from 9/11 is the importance of ensuring continuous transponder communication with ATC, regardless of a hijacking.

"Without the transponder switch in a fully active position, ATC can track an aircraft only by primary radar, which does not indicate aircraft identity and altitude," states DoT. "The loss of this information causes other aircraft to lose awareness of the flight in progress." "

Could this indicate plane switching ?

This surely indicates as the transponders were off those plane did not exist in the sense of identifying `their` flight paths.

[blackcat]

http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/forum/msg72486.html

[CrazyBlade]

Fascinating reading guys, I am becoming more and more convinced of remote-controlled planes being used on 9/11. Would you have any objection to me re-posting this on the Loose Change forum, I feel it would be of interest to several on there and maybe gain some more insight which I would, of course, share here. Let me know ok??

Kind Regards,

CrazyBlade

[John White]

If its not on there already Crazyblade it certainly should be!

Go for it, always

[CrazyBlade]

Thanks. I've not seen it but will have another look before I post it. Its possible I just missed it. Will take another look.

Kind Regards,

CrazyBlade

[scubadiver]

[TonyGosling]

Best article on this fascinating subject IMO is by the sadly deceased Joe Vialls. Ex-military man I believe.


"Home Run"
Electronically Hijacking the World Trade
Center Attack Aircraft


http://www.geocities.com/mknemesis/homerun.html

In the mid-seventies America faced a new and escalating crisis, with US commercial jets being hijacked for geopolitical purposes. Determined to gain the upper hand in this new form of aerial warfare, two American multinationals collaborated with the Defense Advanced Projects Agency (DARPA) on a project designed to facilitate the remote recovery of hijacked American aircraft. Brilliant both in concept and operation, “Home Run” [not its real code name] allowed specialist ground controllers to listen in to cockpit conversations on the target aircraft, then take absolute control of its 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. The engineers had no idea that almost thirty years after its initial design, Home Run’s top secret computer codes would be broken, and 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.
Before moving on to the New York and Washington attacks, we first need to look at the ways in which an aircraft is normally controlled by its pilot, because without this basic knowledge, Home Run would make no sense. In order to control an aircraft in three-dimensional space, the pilot uses the control yoke (joystick) in front of him, rudder pedals under his feet, and a bank of engine throttles located at his side. Without engine thrust the aircraft would not fly at all, so the throttles are largely self explanatory: For more speed or altitude increase throttle, for less speed or altitude decrease throttle.
In order to raise or lower the nose of the aircraft, the pilot pulls or pushes on the control yoke, which in turn raises or lowers the elevators on the horizontal tailplane. To bank the aircraft left or right, the pilot moves the control yoke to the left or right, which in turn operates the ailerons on the outer wings. Lastly, to turn left or right at low speed or “balance” turns at high speed, the pilot presses the left or right rudder pedals as required, which in turn move the rudder on the vertical stabilizer.
Back in the early days of flight, the control yoke and rudder pedals were connected to the various flight control surfaces by thin cables, meaning the pilot had direct physical control over every movement the aircraft made. This was no great problem for an average man flying a small biplane, but as aircraft grew ever bigger, heavier and faster over the years, the loadings on the control yoke and rudder pedals became huge, certainly well beyond the ability of a single pilot to handle unaided.
By the late fifties we were well into the age of hydraulics, where just like the power steering on your automobile, hydraulic rams were placed in line between the pilot’s control cables and each individual control surface. Now when the pilot moved the control yoke, the cables activated sensors, which in turn activated one or more hydraulic rams, which in turn moved one or more control surfaces. For the first time since Bleriot and the Wright brothers, pilots were of necessity being steadily distanced from direct control of their own aircraft.
When the multinationals and DARPA finally came on the scene in the mid-seventies, aircraft systems were even more advanced, with computers controlling onboard autopilots, which in turn were capable of controlling all of the onboard hydraulics. In combination these multiple different functions were now known as the “Flight Control System” or FCS, in turn integrated with sophisticated avionics capable of automatically landing the aircraft in zero visibility conditions. In summary, by the mid-seventies most of the large jets were capable of effectively navigating hundreds of miles and then making automatic landings at a selected airport in zero-zero fog conditions. All of this could be accomplished unaided, but in theory at least, still under the watchful eyes of the flight deck crews.
In order to make Home Run truly effective, it had to be completely integrated with all onboard systems, and this could only be accomplished with a new aircraft design, several of which were on the drawing boards at that time. Under cover of extreme secrecy, the multinationals and DARPA went ahead on this basis and built “back doors” into the new computer designs. There were two very obvious hard requirements at this stage, the first a primary control channel for use in taking over the flight control system and flying the aircraft back to an airfield of choice, and secondly a covert audio channel for monitoring flight deck conversations. Once the primary channel was activated, all aircraft functions came under direct ground control, permanently removing the hijackers and pilots from the control loop.
Remember here, this was not a system designed to “undermine” the authority of the flight crews, but was put in place as a “doomsday” device in the event the hijackers started to shoot passengers or crew members, possibly including the pilots. Using the perfectly reasonable assumption that hijackers only carry a limited number of bullets, and many aircraft nowadays carry in excess of 300 passengers, Home Run could be used to fly all of the survivors to a friendly airport for a safe auto landing. So the system started out in life for the very best of reasons, but finally fell prey to security leaks, and eventually to compromised computer codes. In light of recent high-profile CIA and FBI spying trials, these leaks and compromised codes should come as no great surprise to anyone.
Activating the primary Home Run channel proved to be easy. Most readers will have heard of a “transponder”, prominent in most news reports immediately following the attacks on New York and Washington. Technically a transponder is a combined radio transmitter and receiver which operates automatically, in this case relaying data between the four aircraft and air traffic control on the ground. The signals sent provide a unique “identity” for each aircraft, essential in crowded airspace to avoid mid-air collisions, and equally essential for Home Run controllers trying to lock onto the correct aircraft. Once it has located the correct aircraft, Home Run “piggy backs” a data transmission onto the transponder channel and takes direct control from the ground. This explains why none of the aircraft sent a special “I have been hijacked” transponder code, despite multiple activation points on all four aircraft. Because the transponder frequency had already been piggy backed by Home Run, transmission of the special hijack code was rendered impossible. This was the first hard proof that the target aircraft had been hijacked electronically from the ground, rather than by [FBI-inspired] motley crews of Arabs toting penknives.
The Home Run listening device on the flight deck utilizes the cockpit microphones that normally feed the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR), one of two black boxes armored to withstand heavy impact and thereby later give investigators significant clues to why the aircraft crashed. However, once hooked into Home Run, the CVRs are bypassed and voice transmissions are no longer recorded on the 30-minute endless loop recording tape. If Home Run is active for more than thirty minutes, there will therefore be no audible data on the Cockpit Voice Recorders. To date, crash investigators have recovered the CVRs from the Pentagon and Pittsburg aircraft, and publicly confirmed that both are completely blank. The only possible reason for this, is data capture by Home Run, providing the final hard proof that the attack aircraft were hijacked electronically from the ground, rather than by “Arab terrorists”.
Many readers might by now be indignant; convinced this is incorrect or misleading information because of “those telephone calls from the hijacked aircraft”. Which telephone calls exactly? There are no records of any such calls, and the emotional claptrap the media fed you in the aftermath of the attack was in all cases third-person. We had the media’s invisible “contact” at an airline who “said” a hostess called to report a hijacking, and we had a priest (?) who “said” he received a call from a man asking him in turn to call his wife and tell her he loved her.
Presumably this man would have had his wife’s name filed in his cellphone, and faced with imminent death would have called her direct. The FAA helped out by claiming that it had “overheard” a heated argument from a cockpit where the radio transmit switch had been left in the “on” position. When push came to shove, the FAA was forced to retract, and admit that the mythical argument was not on the tapes at all.
Critically, the passenger manifests for all four aircraft serve as the final (independent) proof that no alleged hijackers or anyone of Arabic name boarded any of the four aircraft used in the attacks. As Laurence T. May points out:
"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." .. And, you guessed it, the name on the ID must match that on the passenger manifest held by the airline ground staff!
It seems highly likely that these revealing passenger manifests will magically disappear when the American Government realizes the dangers of allowing the public access to such incriminating documents. For that reason I have listed the full manifests on a separate page. To visit that page and copy the lists, click here.
Whether more information will be forthcoming about Home Run is unknown, but nowadays there are large numbers of people apart from the author privy to the basic data. As long ago as the early nineties, a major European flag carrier acquired the information and was seriously alarmed that one of its own aircraft might be “rescued” by the Americans without its authority. Accordingly, this flag carrier completely stripped the American flight control computers out of its entire fleet, and replaced them with a home grown version. These aircraft are now effectively impregnable to penetration by Home Run, but that is more than can be said for the American aircraft fleet.
A casual count indicates that more than 600 aircraft in the USA and elsewhere are still vulnerable and could be used in further attacks at any time, which might help explain why America has been bombing the Afghans primarily with bags of wheat. For the first time in US history, American officials appear to be genuinely fearful of future reprisals, and justifiably so with 600 giant bombs parked on the wrong side of their missile defence shield.
It is a “Catch 22” situation. In order to make all of the aircraft safe, the flight control systems would have to be stripped out and replaced, at a cost of billions of dollars the airlines cannot afford because they are going broke. Nor is there enough time. The most innovative anti-hijacking tool in the American arsenal, has now become the biggest known threat to American national security.
For the purpose of public reassurance I would like to publish a complete list of aircraft which cannot be affected by Home Run, but I cannot do so for legal reasons. Any aircraft manufacturer not on the list might feel inclined to sue me for defamation and I can’t afford that. However, there is nothing to stop me publishing my personal choice of aircraft for a flight from, say, Atlanta to Singapore via JFK, Frankfurt, and Kuala Lumpur.
From Atlanta to JFK I would probably travel on a Boeing 737, and connect with a Boeing 777 for the onward flight to Frankfurt. At Frankfurt I would probably board an Airbus A340 for Kuala Lumpur, and finish the journey on a DC9 or a Fokker 100. Naturally I might be unlucky and pick an aircraft with an intoxicated pilot, or an unrelated mechanical problem, but apart from those minor risks I’d feel pretty safe.

15 October 2001

After this page had been hit on by more than 10,000 curious visitors, the current issue of "Business Week" (22Oct) decided to publish an unusual letter, suggesting that the events of the 11th of September would have ended rather differently if there was a capability for Ground Tower Control to "take over the controls of a hijacked plane" (issue still available at any US newsagent).
Remember, the American Federal Government kept Reagan National airport in downtown Washington, DC shut, despite the fact that none of the "hijacked" planes came from there. However, if it were possible to "take over the controls" of a plane, then it would take less than a minute for planes close to DCA airport to be diverted to a target anywhere in the capital. There were just two aircraft types involved on the 11th of September.
Eventually, after much reluctance, the government has now opened up Reagan National airport again, but ONLY for planes with less than 156 seats. Now what kind of planes previously operating happily out of Reagan National will this new "seating" restriction exclude? Hint: Among a few others, the Boeing 757 and 767.
Cynics might be tempted to conclude that, as usual, "important" politicians and bureaucrats are being provided with discreet special protection from Home Run, while everyday Americans are left to take their chances as best they can, and run the continual risk of being shot down by one of their own F16 fighters. Ignorance may be bliss for some folk, but not for those who have studied this page and realized the implications.

18 October 2001

Suddenly, more than five weeks after the attack and for no apparent reason, the most powerful newspaper in the western world published a major article "reinforcing" the myth that physical hijackers were responsible for the attacks on 11 September. No hard facts of course, no corroboration at all, just the usual pathetic series of media "sources", all of them far too "secret" to reveal.
Within hours of this newspaper going to press, television reporters across the entire western world repeated the fiction to their own viewing publics. From London in England to Sydney in Australia, everone woke to this new "proof" that Arabs were the real culprits. Never mind public safety, please believe what we, your trusted and experienced news peddlers, are telling you. To read the propaganda, click here.

19 October 2001

During the past few days I have received many emails asking for a written explanation of who was behind the attacks on 11 September, and why. As an investigator I can prove how the attack was carried out, but I cannot prove why or by whom. Of all the work I have seen on the Internet, the closest to the truth is probably this imspired report called "Orient Express" written by journalist Israel Shamir. To read "Orient Express", click here.


25 October 2001

Though I do not agree with the financial rationale where this report is concerned, the Colonel and his highly specialized group provide valuable additional insights into the impossibility of "hijackers" flying the attack aircraft on 11 September. To read "The Enemy is Inside The Gates", click here.

20 January 2002

Former German Minister Von Buelow Already Knew About Remote Control

In his interview with the German daily "Tagesspiegel" on January 13th, former German Secretary of Defence Andreas Von Buelow made the following statement:-
"There is also the theory of one British flight engineer: According to this, the steering of the planes was perhaps taken out of the pilots' hands, from outside. The Americans had developed a method in the 1970s, whereby they could rescue hijacked planes by intervening into the computer piloting [automatic pilot system]. This theory says, this technique was abused in this case..."
Not quite so much a theory as might first appear. When I released the above report about "Home Run" remote control in October 2001, I mentioned that one European flag carrier was aware of the technology, though at that precise point in time I thought it prudent not to name the actual airline:-
"As long ago as the early nineties, a major European flag carrier acquired the information and was seriously alarmed that one of its own aircraft might be "rescued" by the Americans without its authority. Accordingly, this flag carrier completely stripped the American flight control computers out of its entire fleet, and replaced them with a home grown version. These aircraft are now effectively impregnable to penetration by Home Run, but that is more than can be said for the American aircraft fleet..."
The European flag carrier which completely stripped the American flight computers out of its aircraft was Lufthansa, the German national airline. Bearing in mind his former posts as Secretary of Defence and Minister of Science and Technology, Herr Von Buelow would have known all about this mammoth but secretive task.
How very clever (and discreet) of Von Buelow to sort of "drop the information" into the middle of an interview about the 9/11 attacks!

Home Run Part 2, click Here


The author is a former member of the Society of Licenced
Aeronautical Engineers & Technologist, London

This report may be republished unedited for non-commercial
purposes in the interests of public safety

[Snowygrouch]

if you watch the hillarious British Army TV adverts you will see them using an UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) to make surveillance tapes of ground forces.

The only difference between that and a 757 is the size of the aeroplane. You even see them using an X-Box console joypad to fly it!!!

(I doubt thats technically accurate ).

The technology is fairly basic really; just a jumped up system like that of a remote controlled toy car. (obviously rather more developed).

Thats not to say I think its probable, but definetly quite possible. I was quite sceptical for a while just on principle but I do consider it well worth thinking about.

I don`t mention it much, because like so many other aspects; its quite impossible to prove and doesn`t really get us any further down the line.

C.

[spiv]

Snowy, I was telling you about the scene in the DVD "911: Ripple Effect" in which a large Boeing passenger aircraft was deliberately crashed. If you haven't yet seen it then do take a peek.

It's either being flown by a kamikaze Boeing pilot, or remote control, you take a guess. If a kamikaze, I hope he picked up his paycheque prior to takeoff!!

[TonyGosling]

Latest on the remote controlled military Boeing 757 hypothesis

Link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8m2zWWvMac

[Husq]

"Operation Aphrodite" 2nd World War drones.



Link

[fish5133]

A lot of eyewitness reports to seeing a plane including the firemans at 3:46. The drone theory at least has some history (northwoods etc)

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

Colonel Donn de Grand Pre
If real
Had some interesting things to say
Interesting, but hardly conclusive


Donn de Grand Pre
THE ENEMY IS INSIDE THE GATES
Thu Aug 7 19:44:51 2003
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/8-10-03/discussion.cgi.64.html

Colonel Donn de Grand Pre (ret), in his book, "The Viper's Venom" concludes that the 911 terror attacks were done by remote control technology. Grand Pre was the top US arms dealer to the Middle East under the Ford and Carter administrations. What he saw caused him to leave government service and begin investigating the forces he saw warping our nation's destiny.

==========

http://www.sweetliberty.org/guests.htm

Donn De Grand Pre'
Profile: Author of the book Barbarians Inside The Gates: The Black Book of Bolshevism. Donn is retired military. Served in WWII and the Korean "police action". Stated reason for the book: to sound the alarm, U.S. military is being downsized, downgraded, degraded and demoralized. Barbarians/Bolshivists in charge hold the highest ranks of military office. While we find his suggested remedy frightening, he makes a case. Highly recommended reading for its documented historical facts that fill in many blanks; i.e. Swedish Jew, D. D. Eisenhower's rise to power, responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of Germans post WWII; Holocaust hoax planned in 1919; history of Israel's creation/ creators; ongoing media blitz foments animosity toward Arabs.. the real Semites. Published in 2000, Barbarians brings us to present day.
Address: Grand Pre' Books, Inc., PO Box 1124 / Madison, Virginia 22727
Phone: 1-800-603-3575 (For Visa and Mastercard orders only!)

==========

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/enemy.html

Donn de Grand Pre, a retired Army colonel, is author of A Window on America, Confessions of an Arms Peddler and his latest, Barbarians Inside the Gates

THE ENEMY IS INSIDE THE GATES
by Donn de Grand Pre

A dedicated group of experienced civilian and military pilots, including combat fighter pilots and commercial airline captains, just finished a marathon 72 hours of non-stop briefings and debate over the current crisis evolving from the use of commercial aircraft as cruise missiles against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 11 September.

The so-called terrorist attack was in fact a superbly executed military operation against the United States, 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.

As a tactical military exercise against two significant targets (world financial center and the citadel of world strategic military planning), the attack, from a psychological impact on the American public, equaled the Japanese "surprise" attack on Pearl Harbor 7 Dec 1941.

The over-riding question: If we are at war, who is the enemy?

The group determined that the enemy is within the gates, that he has infiltrated into the highest policy-making positions at the Federal level, and has absolute control, not only of the purse strings, but of the troop build-up and deployment of our military forces, including active, reserve and National Guard units.

PRELUDE TO PANIC

The 9-11 activity and horrific destruction of US property and lives was intentionally meant to trigger a psychological and patriotic reaction on the part of the US citizens, which is paving the way for "combined UN activity" (using the fig leaf of NATO) for striking key targets in both the Middle East/ South Asia and the Balkans. The goal continues to be ultimate destruction of all national sovereignty and establishment of a global government.

The trigger for the 9-11 activity was the imminent and unstoppable world-wide financial collapse, which can only be prevented (temporarily) by a major war, perhaps to become known as WW 111. To bring it off (one more time), martial law will probably be imposed in the United States.

In each of the major wars of the 20th century, the financial manipulators (located in the City of London and New York City) had placed the US (and much of the Western world) in a monetary expansion mode, followed by an ever-tightening vice of a gigantic credit squeeze. We now have two ongoing and tightly controlled simultaneous events (emanating from the two symbolic targets of 911:

1) Alan Greenspan, Fed chairman, promising to flood the market with up to $200 billion in FRNs and to further lower interest rates, thus bringing about hyperinflation and dollar devaluation. Much of these multi billions in largesse will be dumped into the coffers of Wall Street, Defense, bankrupt airlines, insurance companies and into the willing arms of debt-ridden third-world countries in the form of debt repudiation (forgiveness). Call it bribery, in order to get these often reluctant nations to join our coalition of "freedom fighters" in "the war against terrorism".

2) Paul Wolfowitz, deputy Defense secretary, promised that the US will launch "sustained military strikes against those behind the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington". He said that the "military retaliation would continue until the roots of terrorism are destroyed."

This bit of saber rattling was seconded by select NATO allies (especially Britain), and by our chief ally in the Middle East, the Butcher of Beirut, Ariel Sharon, while Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld, with the blessings of Pres. Bush 11, is activating thousands of national guard and reservists, not only to guard the vulnerable airports, but to do fly-overs of our Nation's capital in F16s from the North Dakota Air Guard. Other National Guard units are being jockeyed into potential combat "hot spots" throughout the Middle East/South Asia and the Balkans.

WHO IS THE ENEMY?

Following is a summary of the near-unanimous views of the assembled military and civilian pilots concerning certain critical factors relating to the WTC/Pentagon hit of 9-11:

Troubling questions arose about the alleged pilot-hijackers of the four aircraft, who were supposedly trained on Cessna aircraft over the past year at fields in Florida and Oklahoma. One General officer remarked, "I seriously question whether these novices could have located a target dead-on 200 miles removed from takeoff point...-- much less controlled the flight and mastered the intricacies of 11FR (instrument flight rules) -- and all accomplished in 45 minutes."

The extremely skillful maneuvering of the three aircraft at near mach speeds, each unerringly hitting their targets, was superb. As one Air Force officer -- a veteran of over 100 sorties over North Vietnam -- explained, "Those birds (commercial airliners) either had a crack fighter pilot in the left seat, or they were being maneuvered by remote control."

Another pilot warned that "we had better consider whether electro-magnetic pulse or radio frequency weapons were used from a command and control platform hovering over the Eastern Seaboard... I'm talkin' AWACS."

Another comment: "If there was an AWACS on station over the targeted area, did it have a Global Hawk capability? I mean, could it convert the commercial jets to robotic flying missiles?

A hotly debated question: Who would be in command of such an Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS)? Were they Chinese -- Russians -- Saudis -- Israelis -- NATO ? All of these countries possess AWACS-type aircraft. All (except the Saudis) have the capability to utilize electro-magnetic pulsing (EMP) to knock out on-board flight controls and communications of targeted aircraft, and then, to fly them by remote control.

One of the Air Force officers explained that we had already flown a robot plane the size of a Boeing 737 across the Pacific to Australia -- unmanned -- from Edwards AF13 in California to a successful landing on an Aussie base in South Australia. It flies along a pre-programmed flight path, but is "monitored" (controlled remotely) by a pilot from an outside station.

He explained that the London Economist (20 Sep 2001) published comments from the former CEO of British Airways, Robert Ayling, who stated that an aircraft could be commandeered from the ground or air and controlled remotely in the event of a hijack.

COMMERCIAL JETS AS GUIDED MISSILES

An AP story, dateline Brussels - 7 Oct 01 -- "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.")

Although there is much talk among the various flight crews, Hill says they are not privy to any of the investigations into the events of I I September. "We're in the dark -- very much so ... They're playing it pretty tight to the vest."

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.

As we consider all the options -- and enemies -- who performed this act of war, whether from China, Russia, Israel, an Islamic country, or from NATO, we must also consider that the enemy may be within the gates.

If so, then we are dealing with high treason.

IS THERE A CHINA - ISRAEL CONNECTION?

Under a heading "High-powered Microwave weapons' (Regnery Pub 1999) reported: ', the authors of Red Dragon Rising,

High-powered microwave weapons (sometimes known as radio frequency weapons) which the PLA calls the 'superstars' of warfare, represent the new armaments that may define twenty-first century warfare. These very dangerous weapons can jam electronic equipment by emitting an extremely powerful pulse of electromagnetic energy over a wide area, or their energy can be focused in a narrow beam for use against American satellites I or commercial airliners - Ed 1.

In that startling and factual work, the authors highlight the exceptional efforts on the part of the PLA to acquire the latest hi-tech data from the United States, especially for the "superstars of radio frequency and electro-magnetic pulse weaponry." In their chapter on "Targeting America", the authors refer to a bipartisan Cox-Dicks Committee given the task to investigate "U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial concerns with the Peoples Republic of China".

They point out that the Clinton administration changed the export control regulations (Jan 1996) and that by the end of 1998 the PRC had 600 American super computers.

In 1997-98 the Congressional Joint Economic Committee held hearings on "Radio Frequency Weapons and Proliferation: Potential Impact on the Economy". Several experts appearing before the Committee warned that these weapons pose a distinct threat to the United States. It was revealed during the hearings that China (PLA) has had a high-powered microwave weapon program for 25 years under the direction of one of many Chinese students educated at Berkeley over the years.

The key statement was that the PLA has access to American research -- "through espionage".

Let's fast-forward to 1999 and to a New York Times Op Ed piece by A. M. Rosenthal (22 Oct 1999), in which he described the long-secret arms deals between Israel and Red China He was the managing editor of the New York Times for 15 years prior to that article appearing and a dedicated supporter of Israel. However, as a result of that article, he was fired.

The title of his Op Ed was "The Deadly Cargo", and the lead sets the theme:

More often now, the special cargo arrives in China from Israel -- riles from Israeli military computers, crates with the makings of missiles and other weapons, and the men in the lab coats, the engineers and scientists who know how to put it all together...

And now I see the Chinese minister of defense, who is one of the ranking Tiananmen killers, visits Israel. I read obsequious Israeli speeches praising him and his government...

The two countries talk openly about bigger arms deals in the making. I learn that the Chinese have knit together Russian and Israeli specialties...

The Russians are converting Ilyushin planes into the framework of U.S.-type flying command posts (AWACS) and will ship them to Israel...

In an astounding interview by Tom Valentine (24 Oct 1999) o

[TonyGosling]

Former Top German Government Minister
Rejects Official Story Of 911 Attacks
15/16 January 2002
http://911review.com/articles/vonbuelow/tagesspiegel.html

Former German Cabinet Minister Attacks Official Brainwashing On September 11 Issue Points at "Mad Dog" Zbig and Huntington
Source: Tagesspiegel, 13 Jan 2002

In a full-page interview with the Sunday edition (Jan. 13) of the Berlin Tagesspiegel daily, former German Minister of Technology, Andreas von Buelow, said he does not buy any of the official theories that have been presented to date, on the events of September 11.

The apparent failure of the U.S. Administration including its 26 secret agencies with an annual budget of $30 billion, to come up with any convincing assessment, was one big problem that von Buelow addressed, in quite some detail.

He then addressed the role of the official "brainwashing of the Western mass democracies" on the Sept. 11 issue, in promoting the new enemy image of "Islamic terrorism," along lines developed earlier, by senior advisors of the U.S. Administration:

"I am not the origin of the idea of the enemy image. It originates with Zbigniew Brzezinski and Samuel Huntington, two pioneers of American secret intelligence and foreign policies.

"Already in the mid-1990s, Huntington opined that people in Europe and the USA needed someone they could hate -- that would strengthen the identification with their own society. And Brzezinski, that mad dog, already at his time as advisor to President Jimmy Carter, campaigned for the sole right of the USA to all the world's raw materials, especially crude oil and natural gas."

Von Buelow also addressed the role of Brzezinski, personally, in setting up the afghani operation of armed "Islamic" guerilla warfare against the USSR Afghanistan invasion in and after 1979 -- the Taliban being generated by the same operation, after all.

As for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks as such, von Buelow remarked: "Planning the attacks was a master deed, in technical and organizational terms. To hijack four big airliners within a few minutes and fly them into targets within a single hour and doing so on complicated flight routes! That is unthinkable, without backing from the secret apparatuses of state and industry."

He added that laying false tracks of investigation has been an accompanying feature of covert operations ever since they have been launched by influential agencies, so that he is convinced that the full truth behind Sept. 11 still has to be sought.

A partial translation follows.



Question:

You seem so angry, really upset.

Andreas Von Buelow:

I can explain what's bothering me: I see that after the horrifying attacks of Sept. 11, all political public opinion is being forced into a direction that I consider wrong.

Q:

What do you mean by that?

Von Buelow:

I wonder why many questions are not asked. Normally, with such a terrible thing, various leads and tracks appear that are then commented on, by the investigators, the media, the government: Is there something here or not? Are the explanations plausible? This time, this is not the case at all. It already began just hours after the attacks in New York and Washington and --

Q:

In those hours, there was horror, and grief.

Von Buelow:

Right, but actually it was astounding: There are 26 intelligence services in the U.S.A. with a budget of $30 billion--

Q:

More than the German defense budget.

Von Buelow:

--which were not able to prevent the attacks. In fact, they didn't even have an inkling they would happen. For 60 decisive minutes, the military and intelligence agencies let the fighter planes stay on the ground, 48 hours later, however, the FBI presented a list of suicide attackers. Within ten days, it emerged that seven of them were still alive.

Q:

What, please?

Von Buelow:

Yes, yes. And why did the FBI chief take no position regarding contradictions? Where the list came from, why it was false? If I were the chief investigator (state attorney) in such a case, I would regularly go to the public, and give information on which leads are valid and which not.

Q:

The U.S. government talked about an emergency situation after the attacks: They said they were in a war. Is it not understandable that one does not tell the enemy everything one knows about him?

Von Buelow:

Naturally. But a government which goes to war, must first establish who the attacker, the enemy, is. It has a duty to provide evidence. According to its own admission, it has not been able to present any evidence that would hold up in court.

Q:

Some information on the perpetrators has been proven with documents. The suspected leader, Mohammad Atta, left Portland for Boston on the morning of Sept. 11, in order to board the plane that later hit the World Trade Center

Von Buelow:

If this Atta was the decisive man in the operation, it's really strange that he took such a risk of taking a plane that would reach Boston such a short time before the connecting flight. Had his flight been a few minutes late, he would not have been in the plane that was hijacked. Why should a sophisticated terrorist do this? One can, by the way, read on CNN (Internet) that none of these names were on the official passenger lists. None of them had gone through the check-in procedures. And why did none of the threatened pilots give the agreed-upon code 7700 over the [Steuerknueppel: STEERING NOB?] to the ground station? In addition: The black boxes which are fire and shock proof, as well as the voice recordings, contain no valuable data--

Q:

That sounds like--

Von Buelow:

--like assailants who, in their preparations, leave tracks behind them like a herd of stampeding elephants? They made payments with credit cards with their own names; they reported to their flight instructors with their own names. They left behind rented cars with flight manuals in Arabic for jumbo jets. They took with them, on their suicide trip, wills and farewell letters, which fall into the hands of the FBI, because they were stored in the wrong place and wrongly addressed. Clues were left like behind like in a child's game of hide-and-seek, which were to be followed!

There is also the theory of one British flight engineer:

According to this, the steering of the planes was perhaps taken out of the pilots' hands, from outside.

The Americans had developed a method in the 1970s, whereby they could rescue hijacked planes by intervening into the computer piloting [automatic pilot system]. This theory says, this technique was abused in this case. That's a theory....

Q:

Which sounds really adventurous, and was never considered.

Von Buelow:

You see! I do not accept this theory, but I find it worth considering. And what about the obscure stock transactions? In the week prior to the attacks, the amount of transactions in stocks in American Airlines, United Airlines, and insurance companies, increased 1,200%. It was for a value of $15 billion. Some people must have known something. Who?

Q:

Why don't you speculate on who it might have been.

Von Buelow:

With the help of the horrifying attacks, the Western mass democracies were subjected to brainwashing. The enemy image of anti-communism doesn't work any more; it is to be replaced by peoples of Islamic belief. They are accused of having given birth to suicidal terrorism.

Q:

Brainwashing? That's a tough term.

Von Buelow:

Yes? But the idea of the enemy image doesn't come from me. It comes from Zbigniew Brzezinski and Samuel Huntington, two policy-makers of American intelligence and foreign policy. Already in the middle of he 1990s, Huntingon believed, people in Europe and the U.S. needed someone they could hate-- this would strengthen their identification with their own society. And Brzezinski, the mad dog, as adviser to President Jimmy Carter, campaigned for the exclusive right of the U.S. to seize all the raw materials of the world, especially oil and gas.

Q:

You mean, the events of Sept. 11--

Von Buelow:

--fit perfectly in the concept of the armaments industry, the intelligence agencies, the whole military-industrial-academic complex. This is in fact conspicuous. The huge raw materials reserves of the former Soviet Union are now at their disposal, also the pipeline routes and--

Q:

Erich Follach described that at length in Spiegel: ``It's a matter of military bases, drugs, oil and gas reserves.''

Von Buelow:

I can state: the planning of the attacks was technically and organizationally a master achievement. To hijack four huge airplanes within a few minutes and within one hour, to drive them into their targets, with complicated flight maneuvers! This is unthinkable, without years-long support from secret apparatuses of the state and industry.

Q:

You are a conspiracy theorist!

Von Buelow:

Yeah, yeah. That's the ridicule heaped [on those raising these questions] by those who would prefer to follow the official, politically correct line. Even investigative journalists are fed propaganda and disinformation. Anyone who doubts that, doesn't have all his marbles! That is your accusation.

Q:

Your career actually speaks against the idea that you are not in your right mind. You were already in the 1970s, state secretary in the Defense Ministry; in 1993 you were the SPD [Social Democratic Party] speaker in the Schalk-Golodkowski investigation committee--

Von Buelow:

And it all began there! Until that time, I did not have any great knowledge of the work of intelligence agencies. And now we had to take note of a great discrepancy: We shed light on the dealings of the Stasi and other East bloc intelligence agencies in the field of economic criminality, but as soon as we wanted to know something about the activities of the BND [German intelligence] or the CIA, it was mercilessly blocked. No information, no cooperation, nothing! That's when I was first taken aback.

Q:

Schalck-Golodkowski mediated, among other things, various business deals abroad. When you looked at his case more closely--

Von Buelow:

We found, for example, a clue in Rostock, where Schalck organized his weapons depot. Well, then we happened upon an affiliation of Schalck in Panama, and then we happened upon Manuel Noriega, who was for many years President, drug dealer, and money launderer, all in one, right? And this Noriega was also on the payroll of the CIA, for $200,000 a year. These were things that really made me curious.

Q:

You wrote a book on the dealings of the CIA and Co. In the meantime, you have become an expert regarding the strange things related to intelligence services' work.

Von Buelow:

``Strange things'' is the wrong term. What has gone on, and goes on, in the name of intelligence services, are true crimes.

Q:

What would you say determines the work of intelligence services?

Von Buelow:

So that we don't have any misunderstandings: I find that it makes sense to have intelligence services....

Q:

You don't think much of the earlier proposals by the Greens, who wanted to dismantle these agencies?

Von Buelow:

No. It is right to take a look behind the scenes. Getting intelligence about the intentions of an enemy, makes sense. It is important when one tries to put oneself into the mind of the enemy. Whoever wants to understand the CIA's methods, has to deal with its main tasks, covert operations: below the level of war, and outside international law, foreign states are to be influenced, by organizing insurrections, terrorist attacks, usually combined with drugs and weapons trade, and money laundering. This is essentially very simple: One arms violent people with weapons. Since, however, it must not under any circumstances come out, that there is an intelligence agency behind it, all traces are erased, with tremendous deployment of resources.

I have the impression that this kind of intelligence agency spends 90% of its time this way: creating false leads. So that, if anyone suspects the collaboration of the agencies, he is accused of the sickness of conspiracy madness. The truth often comes out only years later. CIA chief Allen Dulles once said: In case of doubt, I would even lie to the Congress!

Q:

The American journalist Seymour M. Hersh, wrote in the New Yorker, that even some people in the CIA and government assumed, that certain leads had been laid in order to confuse the investigators. Who, Herr von Buelow, would have done this?

Von Buelow:

I don't know that either. How should I? I simply use my common sense, and-- See: The terrorists behaved in such a way to attract attention. And as practicing Muslims, they were in a strip-tease bar, and, drunken, stuck dollar bills into the panty of the dancer.

Q:

Things like that also happen.

Von Buelow:

It may be. As a lone fighter, I cannot prove anything, that's beyond my capabilities. I have real difficulties, however, to imagine that all this all sprung out of the mind of an evil man in his cave.

Q:

Mr. von Buelow, you yourself say that you are alone in your criticism. Formerly, you were part of the political establishment, now you are an outsider.

Von Buelow:

That is a problem sometimes, but one gets used to it. By the way, I know a lot of people, including very influential ones, who agree with me, but only in whispers, never publicly.

Q:

Do you still have contact with old SPD companions, such as Egon Bahr and former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt?

Von Buelow:

There are no close contacts any more. I wanted to go to the last SPD party congress, but I was sick.

Q:

Can it be, Mr. von Buelow, that you are a mouthpiece for typical anti-Americanism?

Von Buelow:

Nonsense, this has absolutely nothing to do with anti-Americanism. I am a great admirer of this great, open, free society, and always have been. I studied in the U.S.

Q:

How did you get the idea that there could be a link between the attacks and the American intelligence agencies?

Von Buelow:

Do you remember the first attack on the WorldTrade Center in 1993?

Q:

Six people were killed and over a thousand wounded, by a bomb explosion.

Von Buelow:

In the middle was the bombmaker, a former Egyptian officer. He had pulled together some Muslims for the attack. They were snuck into the country by the CIA, despite a State Department ban on their entry. At the same time, the leader of the band was an FBI informant.

And he made a deal with the authorities: At the last minute, the dangerous explosive material would be replaced by a harmless powder.

The FBI did not stick to the deal. The bomb exploded, so to speak, with the knowledge of the FBI. The official story of the crime was quickly found: The criminals were evil Muslims.

Q:

At the time Soviet soldiers marched into Afghanistan, you were in the cabinet of Helmut Schmidt. What was it like?

Von Buelow:

The Americans pushed for trade sanctions, they demanded the boycott of the Olympic games in Moscow....

Q:

.... which the German government followed...

Von Buelow:

And today we know: It was the strategy of the American security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, to destabilize the Soviet Union from neighboring Muslim countries They lured the Russians into Afghanistan, and then prepared for them a hell on earth, their Vietnam. With decisive support of the U.S. intelligence agencies, at least 30,000 Muslim fighters were trained in Afghanistan and Pakistan, a bunch of good-for-nothings and fanatics who were, and still are today, ready for anything.

And one of them is Osama bin Laden. I wrote years ago: ` `It was out of this brood, that the Taliban grew up in Afghanistan, who had been brought up in the Koran schools financed by American and Saudi funds, the Taliban who are now terrorizing the country and destroying it

Q:

Even though you say, for the U.S. it was a matter of raw materials in the region, the starting point for the U.S. aggression, was the terrorist attack which cost thousands of human lives.

Von Buelow:

Completely true. One must always keep this gruesome act in mind. Nonetheless, in the analysis of political processes, I am allowed to look and see who has advantages and disadvantages, and what is coincidental. When in doubt, it is always worthwhile to take a look at a map, where are raw materials resources, and the routes to them? Then lay a map of civil wars and conflicts on top of that --they coincide. The same is the case with the third map: nodal points of the drug trade.

Where this all comes together, the American intelligence services are not far away. By the way, the Bush family is linked to oil, gas, and weapons trade, through the bin Laden family.

Q:

What do you think of the Bin Laden films?

Von Buelow:

When one is dealing with intelligence services, one can imagine manipulations of the highest quality. Hollywood could provide these techniques. I consider the videos inappropriate as evidence.

Q:

You believe the CIA is capable of anything, [wouldn't stop at anything].

Von Buelow:

The CIA, in the state interests of the U.S., does not have to abide by any law in interventions abroad, is not bound by international law; only the President gives orders.

And when funds are cut, peace is on the horizon, then a bomb explodes somewhere. Thus it is proven, that you can't do without the intelligence services; and that the critics are nuts, as Father Bush called them, Bush who was once CIA head and President.

You have to see that the U.S. spends $30 billion on intelligence services, and $13 billion on anti-drug work. And what comes out of it?

The chief of a special unit of the strategic anti-drug work declared, in despair, after 30 years of service, that in every big, important drug case, the CIA came in and took it out of my hands. (Rosalinda: Michael Levin)

Q:

Do you criticize the German government for its reaction after Sept. 11?

Von Buelow:

No. To assume that the government were independent in these questions, would be naive.

Q:

Herr von Buelow, what will you do now?

Von Buelow:

Nothing. My task is concluded by saying, it could not have been that way [according to the official story]. Search for the truth!

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

Boeing Fined $15 Million for a chip
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006 040801450.html

CORRECTION TO THIS ARTICLE
In later editions on April 9, an Associated Press article misstated the law the Boeing Co. was fined $15 million for violating when it sold planes overseas with computer chips that had military applications without obtaining a government license. It is the Arms Export Control Act.

Associated Press
Sunday, April 9, 2006
CHICAGO, April 8 -- The Boeing Co. has agreed to pay $15 million to settle federal allegations that it broke the law by selling commercial airplanes equipped with a small chip that has military applications.

It is among the largest fines a company has ever faced for violations of the Arms Control Export Act, which regulates the sale of defense products to overseas interests. The Chicago-based company also agreed to oversight requirements because settlements over previous violations did not result in full compliance.

ad_icon
According to the State Department charges, Boeing shipped 94 commercial jets overseas between 2000 and 2003 that carried the QRS-11 gyrochip embedded in the flight boxes. At the time, the chip, used in the guidance system of the Maverick missile, was on a list of products that required a license for foreign sales.

The chip is part of a backup system that maintains an artificial horizon for pilots, Boeing spokesman Tim Neale said Saturday.

The 2-ounce, 1-inch-diameter chip, made by a unit of BEI Technologies in Concord, Calif., sells for less than $2,000. Boeing executives had argued that a military enemy seeking the chip would have alternatives to buying a $60 million jet and taking apart the flight box.

But the State Department said Boeing's sales were not licensed. And 19 of the planes went to China, where the U.S. export of listed defense items is prohibited.

The company said it has taken steps to prevent further violations.

"There is a greater awareness of what the regulations are," Neale said.

The oversight agreement was signed March 28. The company had faced a maximum fine of $43 million.

Under the settlement, first reported by the Seattle Times, Boeing must appoint an independent, external officer to oversee companywide export-control compliance for two years and retain an outside firm to audit its efforts.

Boeing has been working closely with the State Department to "tighten up" its export process, Neale said. To ensure compliance, the company promises to cooperate with on-site audits for three years.

Boeing has paid millions in previous settlements. In 1998, the company was fined $10 million for sharing technology in a space rocket venture, the Seattle Times reported. And in 2001, it paid more than $4 million for transferring technology without an export license.