What sort of moron thinks a 757 hit the Pentagon?
Swedish Scat Team
HOME • Chronology of Terror • Bibliographies • Valuable Websites • About
This Site • SITE MAP
ACTION • NEWS • Solutions • Candles in the darkness • Revealing Quotes 1
2 3 4 • Letters • SEARCH
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger.”
— Herman Goering
Nazi Air Force (Luftwaffe) commander
at the Nuremberg Trials
Operation 911:
NO SUICIDE PILOTS
Related sites • Related pages • Bibliography
by Carol A. Valentine
http://www.public-action.com/911/robotplane.html
Curator, Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum
http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/
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.
Northrop Grumman Global Hawk
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
Global Hawk’s Australian manager Rod Smith.
“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 flew across the ocean
to Australia, defence officials confirmed.
“The Global Hawk, a jet-powered aircraft with a wingspan equivalent to a
Boeing 737...
[NOTE: two of the aircraft involved in the 911 crashes were Boeing 757s,
two were Boeing 767s]
...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.
“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.”
The article [was] available on the ITN website on September 19, at this
URL:
http://www.itn.co.uk/news/20010424/world/05robotplane.shtm
[Added note from this website: Interestingly, the article has been
removed by ITN. And, as of this writing, after manually searching through
the pages of the itn.co.uk site I’ve found no searchbox that allows you
even to search the site for the article. However the web.archive.org
cached page below has an old ITN searchbox which still works. When a
search for the words “global hawk” is done, an ITN message appears which
says: “This page is not available”.]
http://web.archive.org/web/20010707000937/http://itn.co.uk/news/20010424/
world/05robotplane.shtm
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/itn/
... And Now You Don’t
Then, on September 20, 2001, The Economist published comments from a
former boss of British Airways, Robert Ayling:
“On autopilot into the future”
“Robert Ayling, a former boss of British Airways, suggested in the
Financial Times this week that aircraft could be commandeered from the
ground and controlled remotely in the event of a hijack ...”
(as quoted by KC (kette...@home.com) on alt.current-events.wtc
explosion).
So, even though the ITN article was published on April 24 [2001], 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,” 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.
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,” 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://ussliberty.org/
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
reportedly said he did not care who was killed or what happened to the
ship, he just didn’t want his allies embarrassed.
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 continue. Thirty-fourAmericans were
killed and 171 wounded, thanks to the treason of an American president
and defense secretary.
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.”
Development of a terror campaign in the Miami and Washington, D.C. areas.
Information on Operation Northwoods can be found in James Bamford’s Body
of Secrets, (Doubleday, 2001), and at the following URLs.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/bal-te.md.nsa24apr24.story
http://www.earlham.edu/archive/opf-l/May-2001/msg00062.html
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/
In other words, US allies and people within the US military establishment
are not opposed to killing American servicemen and civilians, given the
right goal.
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.”
(Washington Post, “On flight 77: ‘Our Plane Is Being Hijacked.’”
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’s September 12 edition 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.” (pg. 11)
(Washington Post, September 12, 2001, “On Flight 77: ’Our Plane Is Being
Hijacked’, 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... 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 (U.S. 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,”
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 Christian Science Monitor story discussed below, in “Conversations
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.” (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. Those tapes are now presumed to be in the hands of
federal law-enforcement officials, who arrived at the flight-control
facility minutes after Flight 11 crashed into the World Trade Center. The
tapes presumably could provide clues about the hijackers — and may become
even more important if the plane’s ‘black boxes’ are damaged or never
found.”
(“Controllers’ tale of Flight 11,” The Christian Science Monitor,
September 13, 2001.)
So, yes, the same “federal law-enforcement” machinery that cooked up the
David Koresh negotiation tapes and arranged to destroy the evidence at
the Mt. Carmel Center in the April 19, [1993] inferno will be handling
these records, too.
Flight 175
The Washington Post reported a similar story for United Airlines Flight
175, which crashed into the south tower of the World Trade Center tower
at 9:06 a.m.
“Less than 30 minutes into a journey that was to have taken six hours,
Flight 175 took a sharp turn south into central New Jersey, near Trenton,
an unusual diversion for a plane heading west, airline employees said. It
then headed directly toward Manhattan.
“Somewhere between Philadelphia and Newark — less than 90 minutes from
Manhattan — the aircraft made its final radar contact, according to a
statement released by United Airlines.”
(Washington Post, “‘Everything Seemed Normal When They Left’ Boston
Airport,” September 12, 2001, pg. A10.)
Once again, there was no contemporaneous, detailed, first hand
information from the air traffic controllers about communication from the
air traffic controllers.
Of course the controls would not respond to manual directions if they
were under the control of Global Hawk.
Flight 11/Flight 175 Hijacker Passport Found
We have just mentioned the distinct possibility that the masterminds of
Operation 911 will manufacture evidence. Well, here is a CNN story for
your consideration:
“In New York, several blocks from the ruins of the World Trade Center, a
passport authorities said belonged to one of the hijackers was discovered
a few days ago, according to city Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik. That
has prompted the FBI and police to widen the search area beyond the
immediate crash site.”
(“Leaders urge ‘normal’ Monday after week of terror...,” September 16,
2001 Posted: 7:07p.m. EDT (2307 GMT)
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/gen.america.under.attack/
We are asked to believe that one of the hijackers brought his passport
with him on a domestic fight, even though he knew he would not need it
then, or ever again; that upon impact the passport flew from the
hijacker’s pocket (or was he holding it in his hands?), that the passport
flew out of the aircraft, that it flew out of the burning tower, and that
it was carried by the air currents and landed safely, where it could be
discovered, several blocks away...
Lawd, WHO WRITES THIS STUFF?
Flight 93
United Airlines Flight 93, a Boeing 757, was scheduled to leave Newark
Airport at 8:01 a.m. for San Francisco. We are told it crashed into an
abandoned coal mine near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, at 10:37 a.m., one
hour and 50 minutes after the first World Trade Center tower was hit.
Without a doubt, Flight 93 was shot down. The first TV network reports
said exactly that: Flight 93 had been shot down by a military jet. That
information even made it into the print media.
“Local residents said they had seen a second plane in the area, possibly
an F-16 fighter, and burning debris falling from the sky. [FBI Agent]
Crowley said investigators had determined that two other planes were
nearby but didn’t know if either was military.”
(“Stories swirl around Pa. crash; black box found,” USA Today, September
14, 2001.)
“Pieces of the wreckage have been found as far away as New Baltimore,
about eight miles from the crash site. When the eastbound plane crashed,
a 9-knot wind was blowing from the southeast,” [FBI Agent] Crowley said.
(“Bereaved may visit Flight 93 site,” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Friday,
September 14, 2001.)
On September 11, “[r]esidents and workers at businesses outside
Shanksville, Somerset County, reported discovering clothing, books,
papers, and what appear to be human remains. Some residents said they
collected bags-full of items to be turned over to investigators. Others
reported what appeared to be crash debris floating in Indian Lake, nearly
six miles from the crash site.”
(“Investigators locate ‘black box’ from Flight 93; widen search area in
Somerset crash,” [Pittsburgh] Post Gazette, September 13, 2001.)
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetp3.asp
The Washington Post reported that, just as Congressional leaders were
discussing shooting the plane down, they learned it had crashed.
(”Jetliner Was Diverted Toward Washington Before Crash in Pa,” Sept. 12,
2001, pg. A10.)
The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and the FBI denied
that the plane had been shot down.
The FBI blamed the spread of debris over an 8-mile area on a 10 mph wind
that was blowing at the time. Of the debris, TIME Magazine of September
11 says:
“The largest pieces of the plane still extant are barely bigger than a
telephone book.”
(Pages in this edition are not numbered: this quote appears on what
should be pg. 40).
Planes that crash do not disintegrate in this manner. However, the
assertion that the hijackers had a bomb on board, and the bomb exploded,
might provide an explanation for the disintegration.
There is a problem with this story, however: Hijackers who planned to
crash the plane into the Capitol would not want, or need, a bomb. In
fact, a bomb might be counterproductive: Suppose it went off before
hitting the plane hit the Capitol? The mission would be ruined. Bringing
a bomb on board would greatly increase chances the hijacker who carried
the bomb would be detected when boarding. And it’s hard to imagine why
hijackers would mutilate and dismember passengers with plastic knives and
box cutters when they were planning to blow them up, anyway. No, the bomb
story does not wash. You can read one such story at:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/632626.asp
More Missing Air Traffic Control Conversations
According to an ABC news report by Peter Dizikes on September 13:
“Federal Aviation Administration data shows Flight 93 followed its normal
flight plan until it neared Cleveland, where the plane took a hard turn
south.
“That marks the point at which the plane must have been hijacked,
investigators say. Then it took a turn east.”
Note that the investigators used the phrase “must have been” hijacked.
Didn’t they know? Weren’t the air traffic controllers in touch with the
pilots? But the direction changes with the next paragraph:
“ABCTVNEWS has learned that shortly before the plane changed directions,
someone in the cockpit radioed in and asked the FAA for a new flight
plan, with a final destination of Washington.”
Now THAT conversation must have been interesting! You can imagine the
response of the air traffic controller: “Excuse me? Flight 93, you’re in
the middle of a scheduled trip to San Francisco, but you’re just changed
your mind and want to spend the day in Washington? Please explain.”
According to an MSNBC story of September 22, 2001, Flight 93 was late
taking off, and did not make its way down the runway until 8:41 a.m.
(“The Final Moments of Flight 93" http://www.msnbc.com/news/632626.asp)
It was aloft for almost two hours, crashing at 10:37 a.m. Making a rough
estimate from the distances traveled and the time in the air (see TIME
Magazine, September 11, “The Paths of Destruction”), Flight 93 went off
course sometime between 9:45 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. Recall that both towers
had been hit by 9:06 a.m., and the New York airports had been closed
since 9:17 a.m. It would have been impossible for an air traffic
controller on duty between 9:45—10:00 a.m. not to know that commercial
air traffic in the US was in a dire emergency from “suicide planes.”
And now Flight 93 calls in, asking permission to do a U-turn, fly east an
hour and a half, and land in Washington DC ??? What, the pilot was
nervous and didn’t know there were airports in the midwest?
I’d love to hear the REAL conversation between Flight 93 and the air
traffic controllers, wouldn’t you? But I think we’ll have to wait a
while...
Come to think of it, why would a hijacker call in to ask for an OK to
change directions?
Conflicting And Unbelievable Reports
The networks dropped the story that Flight 93 had been shot down and now
said that Flight 93 passengers called their families and described a
hijacking. The hijackers were armed with box razors, and overwhelmed the
passengers and crew, and told the passengers they planned to crash into
the Capitol in Washington, DC. The hijackers also mutilated and
dismembered the passengers, presumably with their plastic knives and box
cutters. What a messy job that must have been! We were not told if the
hijackers chatted to the passengers about their plans before, after, or
while they were committing the mutilation/dismemberment. (I heard the
mutilation/dismemberment story once while watching network TV coverage.
Then the story was dropped.)
On the other hand, TIME Magazine reported that one of the passengers
called home to say: “We have been hijacked. They are being kind.”
(TIME, Sept. 24, pg. 73.)
Are we believing this? I’m not.
No. Something went wrong with the masterminds’ plan. They could not
afford to have Flight 93 make a conventional landing and allow the pilots
and passengers to talk about their experience. They could not afford to
have the “hijackers” survive and the electronic controls of the plane
examined. So Flight 93 was shot down.
Who Were Those People, Anyway?
Before September 11, the combined forces of US military and domestic
intelligence — the CIA, the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the
National Security Agency — were clueless that such a catastrophic event
would occur. Yet a day or so later, the FBI had secured the names and
mugshots of each of the 19 hijackers. How did the FBI know who the
hijackers were? After all, all the eyewitnesses are dead. How could the
FBI distinguish between “regular” Muslims and hijacker Muslims on those
flights? Or did they just go through the passenger lists culling out the
Muslim-sounding names and labeling the people bearing those names as
hijackers? “You’re Muslim so you’re a hijacker...”
On September 30 I looked at the passenger lists of those four flights. To
my surprise, the lists contained none of the hijackers’ names. Here are
the URLs I checked:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua175.victims.html
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua93.victims.html
Then I went searching on Usenet for more information. I found that
<AF...@webtv.net> had noticed the hijackers’ names were not on the
passenger lists on September 27, on alt.culture.alaska, “Re: BLACK BOXES
AND BODIES -(2).” I don’t know what you’ll find when you look at the
passenger lists, but the historical record is there.
The FBI may be lying, of course, and the airlines telling the truth:
Perhaps none of the “hijackers” were passengers on those four planes.
If that is true, the airlines are helping the FBI commit a most grievous
fraud on the public. What does that say for the airlines’ integrity? In
either case, we can place little confidence in the veracity of the
information in those lists. Names could have been added just as easily as
they may have been deleted.
Don’t Take The Credit, Take The Blame
By now you’ve realized that it’s OK to believe in conspiracies provided
they are Muslim conspiracies. In fact, we MUST believe that a man who
dresses in sheets and lives in a tent or a cave in the middle of nowhere
— Osama bin Laden — was the mastermind. He used his $300 million fortune
to pull off Operation 911. Come to think of it, how do we know the size
of his fortune? Does the FBI know his banker? And given that the world’s
banking system is highly centralized and in the hands of Mr. bin Laden’s
avowed enemies, how could our terrorist tent-dweller have retained his
fortune all these years? If Mr. bin Laden could have pulled this off in
New York, why didn’t he pick on his more direct enemy, Israel, and do a
911 on them?
Brilliant as Mr. bin Laden is, he forgot to take credit for the attack.
Even worse, he forgot to issue any demands. He allowed his operatives to
use their Muslim names and leave a clear trail for the FBI to follow. Mr.
Atta, the pilot of Flight 11 (north World Trade Center), was particularly
helpful. He kindly left his car at the Boston Airport. Luckily, an
unnamed source drew the FBI’s attention to this car. According to radio
reports, the FBI found a suicide note written in Arabic and a copy of the
Koran in the car. Mr. Atta liked to write in Arabic; he wrote a second,
long document in that language, which, for some reason, he put in his
luggage.
Coincidentally, this luggage did not make it to Flight 11, so the FBI
found it at the airport. Another lucky break! But why Mr. Atta would take
luggage on a suicide mission has not been explained. The same note was
carried by one of the hijackers on Flight 93, and, Mother of Miracles!
survived the crash, even though the airplane itself was torn into shards.
Everything was so amazing that Bob Woodward, the man who talks to the
dead, was called in to write a story about it all.
See “In Hijacker’s Bags: a Call to Planning, Prayer, and Death,” The
Washington Post, September 28, 2001. Formerly at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37629 2001Sep27.html
Read Mr. Woodward’s article. Mr. Atta sounds like a Jewish lawyer with
his wires crossed, exhorting his co-conspirators to remember their wills
and reminding them that Mohammed was an “optimist;” exhorting his fellows
to “utilize” (ugh — there’s a lawyer’s word for you — what’s Arabic for
“utilize”?) their few hours left to ask God’s forgiveness. God’s
forgiveness for what? They were about to die heros, martyrs in the good
cause...
Sure, we believe every word. We swallow the whole story.
On the other hand, here is the International Television News article on
the Global Hawk:
Robot plane flies Pacific unmanned
http://web.archive.org/web/20010707000937/http://itn.co.uk/news/20010424/
world/05robotplane.shtm
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/itn/
(ITN Entertainment April 24, 2001)
“The aircraft essentially flies itself, right from take-off, right
through to landing, and even taxiing off the runway.”
— Australian Global Hawk manager Rod Smith
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 flew 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.
The 8600 mile (13840 km) flight, at an altitude of almost 12.5 miles (20
km), took 22 hours and set a world record for the furthest a robotic
aircraft has flown between two points.
The Global Hawk 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.
“The aircraft essentially flies itself, right from takeoff, right through
to landing, and even taxiing off the runway,” said Rod Smith, the
Australian Global Hawk manager.
While in Australia, the Global Hawk will fly about 12 maritime
surveillance and reconnaissance missions around Australia’s remote
coastline.
It can fly non-stop for 36 hours and search 52,895 square miles (37,000
square km) in 24 hours. Australia is assessing the aircraft and might buy
it in the future.
“Emerging systems such as the Global Hawk offer Australia great potential
for surveillance, reconnaissance and ultimately the delivery of combat
power,” said Brendan Nelson, parliamentary secretary to the Australian
defence minister.
Nelson said the Global Hawk could be used in combat to “detect, classify
and monitor” targets as they approached the Australian coast.
Carol A. Valentine
President, Public Action, Inc.
Copyright, October 8, 2001.
May be reproduced for non-commercial purposes.
Have you seen the Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum?
See what they did to the mothers and children
http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/
Related pages
9-11 Was a Mossad “False Flag Operation”
9-11, Mossad, the CIA and “False Flag Operations”
The United States Government Committed the September 11 Attacks
America: the Ultimate Terrorist
The Israeli Connection To 9-11
Fox News Special Report: Israeli Spying on the U.S.
Massive Israeli Spy Ring Linked to September 11
The CIA, Insider Trading and the World Trade Center Terror Attack
Fake Terror: the Road to Dictatorship
Related sites
GUILTY FOR 9-11: BUSH, RUMSFELD, MYERS
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-1.htm
“Andrews Air Force Base is a huge military installation just 10 miles
from the Pentagon.
“On 11 September there were two entire squadrons of combat-ready fighter
jets at Andrews. Their job was to protect the skies over Washington D.C.
They failed to do their job. Despite over one hour’s advance warning of a
terrorist attack in progress, not a single Andrews fighter tried to
protect the city.”
ARE AMERICANS THE VICTIMS OF A HOAX?
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hoax.html
“The time has come to stop using the flag as a blindfold, to stop waving
our guns and our gods at each other, to take a close look at the facts
which have emerged from the attacks on the World Trade Towers and to
recognize the very real possibility, indeed probability, that We The
People are the victims of a gigantic and deadly hoax.”
Stan Goff: The So-Called Evidence Is A Farce
http://www.truefacts.co.uk/cgi-bin/trufax.cgi?a=110901l
“I’m a retired Special Forces Master Sergeant. ... I studied and taught
military science and doctrine. I was a tactics instructor at the Jungle
Operations Training Center in Panama, and I taught Military Science at
West Point. ...
“Based on that experience, and operations in eight designated conflict
areas from Vietnam to Haiti, I have to say that the story we hear on the
news and read in the newspapers is simply not believable. The most
cursory glance at the verifiable facts, before, during, and after
September 11th, does not support the official line or conform to the
current actions of the United States government.”
US planned war in Afghanistan long before September 11
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov2001/afgh-n20.shtml
“The United States ruling elite has been contemplating war in Central
Asia for at least a decade. ... American oil companies have acquired
rights to as much as 75 percent of the output of these new [Caspian Sea
oil] fields, and US government officials have hailed the Caspian and
Central Asia as a potential alternative to dependence on oil from the
unstable Persian Gulf region.
“The major problem in exploiting the energy riches of Central Asia is how
to get the oil and gas from the landlocked region to the world market.
...US oil companies and government officials have explored...pipeline
routes...south from Turkmenistan across western Afghanistan and Pakistan
to the Indian Ocean.”
Homeland Insecurity:
Phoenix, Chaos, The Enterprise, and the Politics of Terror in America
by Douglas Valentine
http://www.counterpunch.org/homeland1.html
“This ability to commit the most horrific acts of terror, and
successfully blame them on its enemies through black propaganda, is what
makes the CIA’s inclusion in the OHS [Office of Homeland Security] so
dangerous.
“This one-two punch, in conjunction with the CIA’s expertise at ‘provoked
responses’ and ‘false flag recruitments,’ also makes the CIA itself a
prime suspect in the terror attacks of 11 September, and the current
propaganda campaign being waged in America now, as a pretext to threaten
terror against the Bush Administration’s domestic political opponents, as
well as to win support from the terrified middle class for the
illegitimate Bush regime.”
USS LIBERTY Memorial
http://ussliberty.org/
“This web site is dedicated to the memory of thirty-four fine young men
who gave their lives on June 8, 1967, defending the USS Liberty against a
sustained air and sea attack by the armed forces of the State of Israel.”
Websites with information on Operation Northwoods:
sunspot.net - maryland’s online community
http://www.baltimoresun.com/bal-te.md.nsa24apr24.story
“U.S. military leaders proposed in 1962 a secret plan to commit terrorist
acts against Americans and blame Cuba to create a pretext for invasion
and the ouster of Communist leader Fidel Castro, according to a new book
about the National Security Agency.”
[Opf-l] Operation Northwoods: acts of terrorism that never happened
http://www.earlham.edu/archive/opf-l/May-2001/msg00062.html
“In the early 1960s, America’s top military leaders reportedly drafted
plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities
to create public support for a war against Cuba.
“Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the
possible assassination of Cuban emigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees
on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even
orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.”
Pentagon Proposed Pretexts for Cuba Invasion in 1962
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/
“In his new exposé of the National Security Agency entitled Body of
Secrets, author James Bamford highlights a set of proposals on Cuba by
the Joint Chiefs of Staff codenamed OPERATION NORTHWOODS.
“This document, titled ‘Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in
Cuba’ was provided by the JCS to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on
March 13, 1962, as the key component of Northwoods. Written in response
to a request from the Chief of the Cuba Project, Col. Edward Lansdale,
the Top Secret memorandum describes U.S. plans to covertly engineer
various pretexts that would justify a U.S. invasion of Cuba.
“These proposals - part of a secret anti-Castro program known as
Operation Mongoose - included staging the assassinations of Cubans living
in the United States, developing a fake ‘Communist Cuban terror campaign
in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington,’
including ‘sink[ing] a boatload of Cuban refugees (real or simulated),’
faking a Cuban airforce attack on a civilian jetliner, and concocting a
‘Remember the Maine’ incident by blowing up a U.S. ship in Cuban waters
and then blaming the incident on Cuban sabotage. Bamford himself writes
that Operation Northwoods ‘may be the most corrupt plan ever created by
the U.S. government.’”
Pentagon documents detail provocations against Cuba
http://www.wsws.org/public_html/iwb12-8/cuba.htm
“The Pentagon offered a wide range of options for manufacturing a pretext
to attack Cuba. In one memo it proposed using Soviet-made MIG fighter
planes piloted by Americans to shoot down either a US warplane or a
‘civil airliner en route from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala,
Panama or Venezuela.’ The downing of the plane would then be blamed on
Cuba and the US would launch a massive assault on the island.
“Another document declared: ‘We could develop a Communist Cuban terror
campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in
Washington.’”
Bibliography
Body of Secrets:
Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency
from the Cold War Through the Dawn of a New Century
by James Bamford
Doubleday, 2001; ISBN 0-385-49907-8
In 1962, U.S. military leaders had a plan for conducting terrorist acts
against Americans while blaming Cuba. Codenamed “Operation Northwoods”,
the plan was intended to provide the propaganda necessary to create
popular sentiment for an invasion of Cuba.
See Amazon.com’s 45 free sample pages
Bin Laden, the Forbidden Truth
by Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie
published originally in France as Bin Laden, la Verite Interdite
This book reveals that FBI deputy director John O’Neill resigned in July
2001 to protest official U.S. government obstruction of his investigation
of terrorism.
The authors report that O’Neill told them: “The main obstacles to
investigate Islamic terrorism were U.S. oil corporate interests and the
role played by Saudi Arabia in it.”
Osama bin Laden is a Saudi who has worked with the CIA since the 1980s,
when they supplied him with U.S.-made Stinger missiles so his forces
could shoot down Russian helicopters in Afghanistan.
Rogue State:
A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower
by William Blum
The Real Terror Network:
Terrorism in Fact and Propaganda
by Edward S. Herman
Pirates and Emperors, Old and New:
International Terrorism in the Real World
by Noam Chomsky
Western State Terrorism
Alexander George, editor; essays by Noam Chomsky, Edward S. Herman, Gerry
O’Sullivan and others
The Fire This Time:
U.S. War Crimes in the Gulf
by Ramsey Clark
Desert Slaughter:
The Imperialist War Against Iraq
by the Workers League
The Culture of Terrorism
by Noam Chomsky
Terrorizing the Neighborhood:
American Foreign Policy in the Post-Cold War Era
by Noam Chomsky
Pressure Drop Press, 1991
Killing Hope:
U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since WWII
by William Blum
The Phoenix Program
by Douglas Valentine
Against Empire
by Michael Parenti
The Sword and the Dollar:
Imperialism, Revolution and the Arms Race
by Michael Parenti
What Uncle Sam Really Wants
by Noam Chomsky
Deadly Deceits:
My 25 years in the CIA
by Ralph W. McGehee
A People’s History of the United States:
1492 — Present
by Howard Zinn
Bloody Hell:
The Price Soldiers Pay
by Daniel Hallock
Corporate Predators:
The Hunt for Mega-Profits and the Attack on Democracy
by Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman
Derailing Democracy:
The America the Media Don’t Want You to See
by David McGowan
The Decline and Fall of the American Empire
by Gore Vidal
Saving Private Power:
The Hidden History of “The Good War”
by Michael Zezima
The Continuing Terror Against Libya
by Fan Yew Teng
The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb
by Gar Alperovitz
The Habits of Highly Deceptive Media:
Decoding Spin and Lies in Mainstream News
by Norman Solomon
Inventing Reality:
The Politics of News Media
by Michael Parenti
Manufacturing Consent:
The Political Economy of the Mass Media
by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky
Toxic Sludge is Good for You!:
Lies, Damn Lies and the Public Relations Industry
by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton
The Hidden Persuaders:
What makes us buy, believe – and even vote – the way we do?
by Vance Packard
War, Lies & Videotape:
How media monopoly stifles truth
edited by Lenora Foerstel; multiple authors
HOME • Chronology of Terror • Bibliographies • Valuable Websites
ACTION • Solutions • Candles in the darkness • About This Site
NEWS • Revealing Quotes 1 2 3 4 • Letters • SEARCH • SITE MAP
Pooh Bear
Swedish Scat Team wrote:
< yawn >
Swedish Scat Team
news:4042CA84...@hotmail.com:
>
> Swedish Scat Team wrote:
>
> < yawn >
>
>
No they didn't.
rms1
Pentagon. The plane and passengers are unaccounted for. Some say it
was a bomb. Hello! Missing plane, Pentagon explosion on 9/11/01 - it
was a deliberate crash, plain and simple. Also, if you want to make a
case, I suggest not calling those whom you wish to persuade "morons."
Just a suggestion.
=Ö§âmâ ßíñ GORTICIAN=
@posting.google.com:
> This "moron," for one, believes just that - a 757 did hit the
> Pentagon.
And that's what makes you a moron.
> The plane and passengers are unaccounted for.
This is your reasoning? Could the planes have landed somewhere? Flown
over the ocean?
You'd be in a better position if you had some shred of evidence to
support your belief.
But you don't.
> Some say it
> was a bomb. Hello! Missing plane, Pentagon explosion on 9/11/01 - it
> was a deliberate crash, plain and simple.
Proof?
Because CNN said so?
> Also, if you want to make a
> case, I suggest not calling those whom you wish to persuade "morons."
> Just a suggestion.
>
You can't persuade morons, and what would be the point?
--
I'm Rick James, Bitch
Death to Trolls
http://www.latech.edu/tech/orgs/klpi/mboard/phpBB2/
#2 Pentagon 9/11 Site on the Web
http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon
age...@justicemail.com
<g...@buh.cuh> wrote:
>rm...@my-deja.com (rms1) wrote in news:d8b836e5.0403010735.5a9775d6
>@posting.google.com:
>
>> This "moron," for one, believes just that - a 757 did hit the
>> Pentagon.
>
>
>And that's what makes you a moron.
>
>
>
>> The plane and passengers are unaccounted for.
>
>
>This is your reasoning? Could the planes have landed somewhere?
Without being notice by several hundred people? NO.
>Flown over the ocean?
And where would it have gone after that?
And where are the passengers?
>You'd be in a better position if you had some shred of evidence to
>support your belief.
You first, Jason.
>You can't persuade morons, and what would be the point?
You're talking to yourself again, aren't you, Jason?
=Ö§âmâ ßíñ GORTICIAN=
news:3tg740hovjo5p7t1f...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 19:59:07 -0000, "=Ö§âmâ ßíñ GORTICIAN="
> <g...@buh.cuh> wrote:
>
>>rm...@my-deja.com (rms1) wrote in news:d8b836e5.0403010735.5a9775d6
>>@posting.google.com:
>>
>>> This "moron," for one, believes just that - a 757 did hit the
>>> Pentagon.
>>
>>
>>And that's what makes you a moron.
>>
>>
>>
>>> The plane and passengers are unaccounted for.
>>
>>
>>This is your reasoning? Could the planes have landed somewhere?
>
> Without being notice by several hundred people? NO.
Not even at a military base?
>>Flown over the ocean?
>
> And where would it have gone after that?
Down is a good direction.
> And where are the passengers?
You have a limited ability to think laterally. They are dead, Jim.
>>You'd be in a better position if you had some shred of evidence to
>>support your belief.
>
> You first, Jason.
Wow. Don't back down so fast, fucky.
>>You can't persuade morons, and what would be the point?
>
> You're talking to yourself again, aren't you, Jason?
Yes, Peewee.
age...@justicemail.com
<g...@buh.cuh> wrote:
>>>> The plane and passengers are unaccounted for.
>>>
>>>
>>>This is your reasoning? Could the planes have landed somewhere?
>>
>> Without being notice by several hundred people? NO.
>
>Not even at a military base?
Not even at a military base.
>>>Flown over the ocean?
>>
>> And where would it have gone after that?
>
>Down is a good direction.
Why would it have gone down?
>> And where are the passengers?
>
>You have a limited ability to think laterally. They are dead, Jim.
You have a limited ability to think at all.
And the correct quote is:
"He is intelligent, but not experienced. His pattern indicates 2
dimensional thinking. "
>>>You'd be in a better position if you had some shred of evidence to
>>>support your belief.
>>
>> You first, Jason.
>
>
>Wow. Don't back down so fast, fucky.
Who's backing down, Jason?
>>>You can't persuade morons, and what would be the point?
>>
>> You're talking to yourself again, aren't you, Jason?
>
>
>Yes, Peewee.
Glad you recognize it.
Don Dirk of Dowdawee
4ax.com:
> On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 23:42:40 -0000, "=Ö§âmâ ßíñ GORTICIAN="
> <g...@buh.cuh> wrote:
>
>
>>>>> The plane and passengers are unaccounted for.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>This is your reasoning? Could the planes have landed somewhere?
>>>
>>> Without being notice by several hundred people? NO.
>>
>>Not even at a military base?
>
> Not even at a military base.
I love these grand, sweeping statements you make.
Explain...
>>>>Flown over the ocean?
>>>
>>> And where would it have gone after that?
>>
>>Down is a good direction.
>
> Why would it have gone down?
That's usually what happens to planes that are shot down or bombed.
>>> And where are the passengers?
>>
>>You have a limited ability to think laterally. They are dead, Jim.
>
> You have a limited ability to think at all.
But I seem to understand that the passengers are all dead.
It has been three years. Strive for growth.
> And the correct quote is:
>
> "He is intelligent, but not experienced. His pattern indicates 2
> dimensional thinking. "
g33k.
>>>>You'd be in a better position if you had some shred of evidence to
>>>>support your belief.
>>>
Well?
>>> You first, Jason.
>>
>>
>>Wow. Don't back down so fast, fucky.
>
> Who's backing down, Jason?
Looks like you are, dicknose.
>>>>You can't persuade morons, and what would be the point?
>>>
>>> You're talking to yourself again, aren't you, Jason?
>>
>>
>>Yes, Peewee.
>
> Glad you recognize it.
Your penchant for schoolyard IKYABWAIs?
--
Troll my message board and I will beat your ass
http://www.latech.edu/tech/orgs/klpi/mboard/phpBB2/
age...@justicemail.com
<sp...@snuhco.com> wrote:
>I love these grand, sweeping statements you make.
They're as good as yours are Jason.
>>>>>Flown over the ocean?
>>>>
>>>> And where would it have gone after that?
>>>
>>>Down is a good direction.
>>
>> Why would it have gone down?
>
>That's usually what happens to planes that are shot down or bombed.
And you have proof that Flight 77 was shot down or bombed? Didn't
think so.
>>>> And where are the passengers?
>>>
>>>You have a limited ability to think laterally. They are dead, Jim.
>>
>> You have a limited ability to think at all.
>
>But I seem to understand that the passengers are all dead.
That's about the only thing you have right. You just have trouble
understanding where they died.
>It has been three years. Strive for growth.
You first, Jason.
>> And the correct quote is:
>>
>> "He is intelligent, but not experienced. His pattern indicates 2
>> dimensional thinking. "
>
>
>g33k.
>
>
>>>>>You'd be in a better position if you had some shred of evidence to
>>>>>support your belief.
>>>>
>
>Well?
>
>
>>>> You first, Jason.
>>>
>>>
>>>Wow. Don't back down so fast, fucky.
>>
>> Who's backing down, Jason?
>
>
>Looks like you are, dicknose.
Not me, Jason.
Don Dirk of Dowdawee
4ax.com:
> On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 01:16:51 -0000, Don Dirk of Dowdawee
> <sp...@snuhco.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I love these grand, sweeping statements you make.
>
> They're as good as yours are Jason.
>
Be very proud of yourself, then.
>>>>>>Flown over the ocean?
>>>>>
>>>>> And where would it have gone after that?
>>>>
>>>>Down is a good direction.
>>>
>>> Why would it have gone down?
>>
>>That's usually what happens to planes that are shot down or bombed.
>
> And you have proof that Flight 77 was shot down or bombed? Didn't
> think so.
Then where is it?
; )
>>>>> And where are the passengers?
>>>>
>>>>You have a limited ability to think laterally. They are dead, Jim.
>>>
>>> You have a limited ability to think at all.
>>
>>But I seem to understand that the passengers are all dead.
>
> That's about the only thing you have right. You just have trouble
> understanding where they died.
Since there were no bodies at the Pentagon, that's presents a bit of a
problem.
Got any hard proof of plane passenger bodies?
No.
The stories don't even match up.
Plane melted...DNA melted...
Oops, they identified everyone via...DNA.
They're almost as smart as you.
>>It has been three years. Strive for growth.
>
> You first, Jason.
I decided to quit at 8".
>
>>> And the correct quote is:
>>>
>>> "He is intelligent, but not experienced. His pattern indicates 2
>>> dimensional thinking. "
>>
>>
>>g33k.
>>
>>
>>>>>>You'd be in a better position if you had some shred of evidence to
>>>>>>support your belief.
>>>>>
>>
>>Well?
Well?
>>
>>
>>>>> You first, Jason.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Wow. Don't back down so fast, fucky.
>>>
>>> Who's backing down, Jason?
>>
>>
>>Looks like you are, dicknose.
>
> Not me, Jason.
You just continue to make claims without providing any proof, right?
You stand down more than the military, girlfriend.
>>>>>>You can't persuade morons, and what would be the point?
>>>>>
>>>>> You're talking to yourself again, aren't you, Jason?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yes, Peewee.
>>>
>>> Glad you recognize it.
Paging Mr. Herman.
age...@justicemail.com
<sp...@snuhco.com> wrote:
>> And you have proof that Flight 77 was shot down or bombed? Didn't
>> think so.
>
>Then where is it?
It was in the Pentagon on 9/11.
>
>
>
>>>>>> And where are the passengers?
>>>>>
>>>>>You have a limited ability to think laterally. They are dead, Jim.
>>>>
>>>> You have a limited ability to think at all.
>>>
>>>But I seem to understand that the passengers are all dead.
>>
>> That's about the only thing you have right. You just have trouble
>> understanding where they died.
>
>
>Since there were no bodies at the Pentagon, that's presents a bit of a
>problem.
There were bodies at the Pentagon, Jason.
>Got any hard proof of plane passenger bodies?
The coroner identified remains from all passengers.
>>>It has been three years. Strive for growth.
>>
>> You first, Jason.
>
>
>I decided to quit at 8".
Actually you quit at 8 years old.
>>>>>Wow. Don't back down so fast, fucky.
>>>>
>>>> Who's backing down, Jason?
>>>
>>>
>>>Looks like you are, dicknose.
>>
>> Not me, Jason.
>
>You just continue to make claims without providing any proof, right?
That's your department, Jason.
Don Dirk of Dowdawee
4ax.com:
> On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 01:42:42 -0000, Don Dirk of Dowdawee
> <sp...@snuhco.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> And you have proof that Flight 77 was shot down or bombed? Didn't
>>> think so.
>>
>>Then where is it?
>
> It was in the Pentagon on 9/11.
The plane went into a 16 foot-wide hole, and didn't leave any wing parts
outside?
Was there any damage from the tail?
What happened to the engines?
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>> And where are the passengers?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You have a limited ability to think laterally. They are dead, Jim.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have a limited ability to think at all.
>>>>
>>>>But I seem to understand that the passengers are all dead.
>>>
>>> That's about the only thing you have right. You just have trouble
>>> understanding where they died.
>>
>>
>>Since there were no bodies at the Pentagon, that's presents a bit of a
>>problem.
>
> There were bodies at the Pentagon, Jason.
Yes, clueless. People work at the Pentagon.
>
>>Got any hard proof of plane passenger bodies?
>
> The coroner identified remains from all passengers.
Even though they had been incinerated?
>>>>It has been three years. Strive for growth.
>>>
>>> You first, Jason.
>>
>>
>>I decided to quit at 8".
>
> Actually you quit at 8 years old.
Yet I'm more than you'll ever be. I bet that hurts.
>>>>>>Wow. Don't back down so fast, fucky.
>>>>>
>>>>> Who's backing down, Jason?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Looks like you are, dicknose.
>>>
>>> Not me, Jason.
>>
>>You just continue to make claims without providing any proof, right?
>
> That's your department, Jason.
Suck it, Trebeck
http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon
running with scissors
> rm...@my-deja.com (rms1) wrote in news:d8b836e5.0403010735.5a9775d6
> @posting.google.com:
>
> > This "moron," for one, believes just that - a 757 did hit the
> > Pentagon.
>
>
> And that's what makes you a moron.
>
>
>
> > The plane and passengers are unaccounted for.
>
>
> This is your reasoning? Could the planes have landed somewhere? Flown
> over the ocean?
yup, and the passengers and crew are all sipping Mai Tai's in the
Maldives. the plane got turned into a Bar.
>
> You'd be in a better position if you had some shred of evidence to
> support your belief.
bwahahahahhahhahhhhahahahahhahahhahhahahahha
>
> But you don't.
>
>
> > Some say it
> > was a bomb. Hello! Missing plane, Pentagon explosion on 9/11/01 - it
> > was a deliberate crash, plain and simple.
>
> Proof?
> Because CNN said so?
because facts say so.
>
>
> > Also, if you want to make a
> > case, I suggest not calling those whom you wish to persuade "morons."
> > Just a suggestion.
> >
>
> You can't persuade morons, and what would be the point?
Bingo. now fuck off and tell your story to your houseplants.
coyotes rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> >
> >Down is a good direction.
>
> Why would it have gone down?
for a twenty itll go down on anyone
what a slut
rms1
> And that's what makes you a moron.
To call names from behing the veil of a computer makes one a coward.
I'm not calling you a "coward," but you do fit the profile.
> This is your reasoning? Could the planes have landed somewhere? Flown
> over the ocean?
Yes. Missing plane, missing passengers, countless eyewitness accounts
of a plane flying over head and crashing into the Pentagon, big
explosion - do the math - it's not that hard.
> You'd be in a better position if you had some shred of evidence to
> support your belief.
I don't have to prove a negative. Rather, you and your conspiracy
minded paranoid-delusional cronies have to prove something else -
which you haven't. Sorry to shatter your delusions.
> Because CNN said so?
Yes. And every other credible news source and countless eyewitness
accounts. I'll take their word over a Usenet hack's anyday, thank you
very much.
> You can't persuade morons, and what would be the point?
Then you are wasting your energy and time - but you probably have a
lot of time on your hands after all.
Don Dirk of Dowdawee
news:d8b836e5.04030...@posting.google.com:
Nice to see you don't a single supporting piece of evidence...
Laurence Doering
> age...@justicemail.com wrote in news:0lq740hsddss4kakcairtjeh9kpaevb2h8@
> 4ax.com:
>
>> On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 01:42:42 -0000, Don Dirk of Dowdawee
>> <sp...@snuhco.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> And you have proof that Flight 77 was shot down or bombed? Didn't
>>>> think so.
>>>
>>>Then where is it?
>>
>> It was in the Pentagon on 9/11.
>
> The plane went into a 16 foot-wide hole, and didn't leave any wing parts
> outside?
No. The plane went into a hole that was about 120 feet wide,
a bit more than 2/3 of the wingspan of a Boeing 757.
> Was there any damage from the tail?
Yes. The vertical stabilizer left marks on the Pentagon's facade
above the center of the hole in the outside wall.
> What happened to the engines?
They went into the 120-foot wide hole along with the wreckage
from the plane's fuselage and wing center section.
ljd
Don Dirk of Dowdawee
news:c22ih8$1ousko$2...@ID-203109.news.uni-berlin.de:
> On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 02:10:21 -0000, Don Dirk of Dowdawee
> <sp...@snuhco.com> wrote:
>> age...@justicemail.com wrote in
>> news:0lq740hsddss4kakcairtjeh9kpaevb2h8@ 4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 01:42:42 -0000, Don Dirk of Dowdawee
>>> <sp...@snuhco.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> And you have proof that Flight 77 was shot down or bombed? Didn't
>>>>> think so.
>>>>
>>>>Then where is it?
>>>
>>> It was in the Pentagon on 9/11.
>>
>> The plane went into a 16 foot-wide hole, and didn't leave any wing
>> parts outside?
>
> No. The plane went into a hole that was about 120 feet wide,
> a bit more than 2/3 of the wingspan of a Boeing 757.
120 feet wide?
Got a picture to support this claim?
A *picture*.
You do know that the entire right side of the Pentagon damage disproves
your claim, right?
The columns, etc. were still there. So how do you get 120 feet wide?
>
>> Was there any damage from the tail?
>
> Yes. The vertical stabilizer left marks on the Pentagon's facade
> above the center of the hole in the outside wall.
Cite?
Got a photo to support this claim?
>> What happened to the engines?
>
> They went into the 120-foot wide hole along with the wreckage
> from the plane's fuselage and wing center section.
Can you show me a right-side engine hole, then?
Why not?
> ljd
running with scissors
uh huh. it must be a new form of therapy in mental asylums.
Laurence Doering
> Laurence Doering <l...@bcpl.net> wrote in
> news:c22ih8$1ousko$2...@ID-203109.news.uni-berlin.de:
>
>> On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 02:10:21 -0000, Don Dirk of Dowdawee
>> <sp...@snuhco.com> wrote:
>>> age...@justicemail.com wrote in
>>> news:0lq740hsddss4kakcairtjeh9kpaevb2h8@ 4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 01:42:42 -0000, Don Dirk of Dowdawee
>>>> <sp...@snuhco.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> And you have proof that Flight 77 was shot down or bombed? Didn't
>>>>>> think so.
>>>>>
>>>>>Then where is it?
>>>>
>>>> It was in the Pentagon on 9/11.
>>>
>>> The plane went into a 16 foot-wide hole, and didn't leave any wing
>>> parts outside?
>>
>> No. The plane went into a hole that was about 120 feet wide,
>> a bit more than 2/3 of the wingspan of a Boeing 757.
>
> 120 feet wide?
>
> Got a picture to support this claim?
>
> A *picture*.
Why yes, I do -- two pictures, in fact.
Figures 3.8 and 3.9 on page 16 of the ASCE's Pentagon Building
Performance Report [1] show that there was a hole in the Pentagon's
exterior wall extending from column line 8 to past column line 18
at the first floor level. The columns were on 10 foot centers,
so you do the math. (In case your math is rusty, that's about
120 feet, not 16 feet.)
> You do know that the entire right side of the Pentagon damage disproves
> your claim, right?
No, I don't. Perhaps you can explain why, in detail. You might
want to try to do a better job than you did last time, when we had
this same argument last September.
> The columns, etc. were still there. So how do you get 120 feet wide?
If you can see the columns, genius, it's because there's a great big
hole in the wall that the columns used to be behind. Columns 15, 16,
and 17 were severed by something large and thin, kind of like the
wing of a large airplane, maybe. Look at figure 3.9 in the ASCE
report.
>>> Was there any damage from the tail?
>>
>> Yes. The vertical stabilizer left marks on the Pentagon's facade
>> above the center of the hole in the outside wall.
>
> Cite?
>
> Got a photo to support this claim?
The ASCE report, page 16, figure 3.8 again. The photo shows the
exterior wall above the two story high portion of the 120-foot
hole. Check it out.
>>> What happened to the engines?
>>
>> They went into the 120-foot wide hole along with the wreckage
>> from the plane's fuselage and wing center section.
>
> Can you show me a right-side engine hole, then?
Yup. See figure 6.1, page 35 of the ASCE report for an idea of
where the right side engine impacted the exterior wall. Now go
back to figure 3.9 on page 16, and observe the missing wall (in
layman's terms, part of what they call a "hole") between column
lines 17 and 18 where the right engine and inboard wing penetrated.
> Why not?
Why not what?
ljd
[1] The ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report is available for
free in PDF form at:
<http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/art017.html>
age...@justicemail.com
<sp...@snuhco.com> wrote:
>age...@justicemail.com wrote in news:0lq740hsddss4kakcairtjeh9kpaevb2h8@
>4ax.com:
>
>> On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 01:42:42 -0000, Don Dirk of Dowdawee
>> <sp...@snuhco.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> And you have proof that Flight 77 was shot down or bombed? Didn't
>>>> think so.
>>>
>>>Then where is it?
>>
>> It was in the Pentagon on 9/11.
>
>The plane went into a 16 foot-wide hole, and didn't leave any wing parts
>outside?
The hole the plane made was significantly wider than 16 feet, Jason.
>Was there any damage from the tail?
Yes.
>What happened to the engines?
That has been covered before.
<snip>
>>>Since there were no bodies at the Pentagon, that's presents a bit of a
>>>problem.
>>
>> There were bodies at the Pentagon, Jason.
>
>Yes, clueless. People work at the Pentagon.
But you just said that there were no bodies, Jason. Can't you make up
your mind?
>>>Got any hard proof of plane passenger bodies?
>>
>> The coroner identified remains from all passengers.
>
>Even though they had been incinerated?
Who claims that they were incinerated, Jason?
>>>>>It has been three years. Strive for growth.
>>>>
>>>> You first, Jason.
>>>
>>>
>>>I decided to quit at 8".
>>
>> Actually you quit at 8 years old.
>
>Yet I'm more than you'll ever be. I bet that hurts.
Only when I laugh.
>>>>>>>Wow. Don't back down so fast, fucky.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Who's backing down, Jason?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Looks like you are, dicknose.
>>>>
>>>> Not me, Jason.
>>>
>>>You just continue to make claims without providing any proof, right?
>>
>> That's your department, Jason.
>
>
>Suck it, Trebeck
And as always, that's the best Jason can do.
age...@justicemail.com
<sp...@snuhco.com> wrote:
>> Yes. And every other credible news source and countless eyewitness
>> accounts. I'll take their word over a Usenet hack's anyday, thank you
>> very much.
>>
>>> You can't persuade morons, and what would be the point?
>>
>> Then you are wasting your energy and time - but you probably have a
>> lot of time on your hands after all.
>>
>
>Nice to see you don't a single supporting piece of evidence...
Neither do you, Jason.
Don Dirk of Dowdawee
4ax.com:
> On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 02:10:21 -0000, Don Dirk of Dowdawee
> <sp...@snuhco.com> wrote:
>
>>age...@justicemail.com wrote in
news:0lq740hsddss4kakcairtjeh9kpaevb2h8@
>>4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 01:42:42 -0000, Don Dirk of Dowdawee
>>> <sp...@snuhco.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> And you have proof that Flight 77 was shot down or bombed? Didn't
>>>>> think so.
>>>>
>>>>Then where is it?
>>>
>>> It was in the Pentagon on 9/11.
>>
>>The plane went into a 16 foot-wide hole, and didn't leave any wing
parts
>>outside?
>
> The hole the plane made was significantly wider than 16 feet, Jason.
At the top?
A lie.
On the right side?
A lie.
>>Was there any damage from the tail?
>
> Yes.
Got a cite for that?
>>What happened to the engines?
>
> That has been covered before.
>
> <snip>
Yes. Andy Carol tried. And then ran away...forever.
All that talk of flying engines made him nervous.
Say, aren't you a former flying engine proponent yourself?
; )
What made you change your tune?
>>>>Since there were no bodies at the Pentagon, that's presents a bit of
a
>>>>problem.
>>>
>>> There were bodies at the Pentagon, Jason.
>>
>>Yes, clueless. People work at the Pentagon.
>
> But you just said that there were no bodies, Jason. Can't you make up
> your mind?
No bodies from a 757, which was my point.
>>>>Got any hard proof of plane passenger bodies?
>>>
>>> The coroner identified remains from all passengers.
>>
>>Even though they had been incinerated?
>
> Who claims that they were incinerated, Jason?
Well, lots of people did. Originally.
Hell, they said the PLANE disintegrated, originally.
So the fire collapsed yet another building, but the bodies weren't
burned?
>>>>>>It has been three years. Strive for growth.
>>>>>
>>>>> You first, Jason.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I decided to quit at 8".
>>>
>>> Actually you quit at 8 years old.
>>
>>Yet I'm more than you'll ever be. I bet that hurts.
>
> Only when I laugh.
>
>>>>>>>>Wow. Don't back down so fast, fucky.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Who's backing down, Jason?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Looks like you are, dicknose.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not me, Jason.
>>>>
>>>>You just continue to make claims without providing any proof, right?
>>>
>>> That's your department, Jason.
>>
>>
>>Suck it, Trebeck
>
> And as always, that's the best Jason can do.
>
At least I can keep my viewpoint straight, drifter.
Don Dirk of Dowdawee
4ax.com:
No 757 Hit The Pentagon - Proof
http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon
AbsolutelyCertain
"Don Dirk of Dowdawee" <sp...@snuhco.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94A0AF37C57...@216.168.3.44...
> age...@justicemail.com wrote in news:vv1a40l1mge1gebmsfo6oo8bisudjkd082@
> 4ax.com:
>
> > On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 02:10:21 -0000, Don Dirk of Dowdawee
> > <sp...@snuhco.com> wrote:
> >
> >>age...@justicemail.com wrote in
> news:0lq740hsddss4kakcairtjeh9kpaevb2h8@
> >>4ax.com:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 01:42:42 -0000, Don Dirk of Dowdawee
> >>> <sp...@snuhco.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>> And you have proof that Flight 77 was shot down or bombed? Didn't
> >>>>> think so.
> >>>>
> >>>>Then where is it?
> >>>
> >>> It was in the Pentagon on 9/11.
> >>
> >>The plane went into a 16 foot-wide hole, and didn't leave any wing
> parts
> >>outside?
> >
> > The hole the plane made was significantly wider than 16 feet, Jason.
>
> At the top?
>
> A lie.
>
> On the right side?
>
> A lie.
>
>
>
>
> >>Was there any damage from the tail?
> >
> > Yes.
>
>
> Got a cite for that?
Already asked and answered, in this space. You have been pointed to an
exhaustive study of the damage but apparently have never read it. After all
these months .... why not?
Don Dirk of Dowdawee
news:c2348t$8sg$0...@pita.alt.net:
There is absolutely zero evidence of tail damage, anywhere.
But it's nice to see what sort of morons believe a 757 hit the Pentagon.
No 757 Hit The Pentagon, You Idiot
http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon
AbsolutelyCertain
The evidence to the contrary has been posted for you as recently as today,
as it has been for your benefit going back a year or so. Have you bothered
to look at it yet? The world waits to hear how your analysis trumps that of
the renowned engineers who wrote the report. The diagrams in the referenced
report will erase any doubts about the nonsense on your cited website.
Don Dirk of Dowdawee
news:c235b4$akb$0...@pita.alt.net:
That was a crappy photo that showed nothing.
You can do better than that, I hope.
What sort of tail damage do you see?
age...@justicemail.com
<sp...@snuhco.com> wrote:
>>>Nice to see you don't a single supporting piece of evidence...
>>
>> Neither do you, Jason.
>>
>
>No 757 Hit The Pentagon - Proof
>http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon
Like I said, neither do you.
age...@justicemail.com
<sp...@snuhco.com> wrote:
>age...@justicemail.com wrote in news:vv1a40l1mge1gebmsfo6oo8bisudjkd082@
>4ax.com:
>
>> On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 02:10:21 -0000, Don Dirk of Dowdawee
>> <sp...@snuhco.com> wrote:
>>
>>>age...@justicemail.com wrote in
>news:0lq740hsddss4kakcairtjeh9kpaevb2h8@
>>>4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 01:42:42 -0000, Don Dirk of Dowdawee
>>>> <sp...@snuhco.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> And you have proof that Flight 77 was shot down or bombed? Didn't
>>>>>> think so.
>>>>>
>>>>>Then where is it?
>>>>
>>>> It was in the Pentagon on 9/11.
>>>
>>>The plane went into a 16 foot-wide hole, and didn't leave any wing
>parts
>>>outside?
>>
>> The hole the plane made was significantly wider than 16 feet, Jason.
>
>At the top?
>
>A lie.
How big do you think a 757 fuselage is, Jason?
>On the right side?
>
>A lie.
Only in your damaged imagination.
>>>Was there any damage from the tail?
>>
>> Yes.
>
>
>Got a cite for that?
It's been given to you.
>>>What happened to the engines?
>>
>> That has been covered before.
>>
>> <snip>
>
>Yes. Andy Carol tried. And then ran away...forever.
>
>All that talk of flying engines made him nervous.
>
>Say, aren't you a former flying engine proponent yourself?
>
>; )
>
>What made you change your tune?
I've not changed any "tune", Jason.
>>>>>Since there were no bodies at the Pentagon, that's presents a bit of
>a
>>>>>problem.
>>>>
>>>> There were bodies at the Pentagon, Jason.
>>>
>>>Yes, clueless. People work at the Pentagon.
>>
>> But you just said that there were no bodies, Jason. Can't you make up
>> your mind?
>
>No bodies from a 757, which was my point.
But that's not what you said, and there were bodies (and parts of
bodies) from Flight 77 found in the rubble.
>>>>>Got any hard proof of plane passenger bodies?
>>>>
>>>> The coroner identified remains from all passengers.
>>>
>>>Even though they had been incinerated?
>>
>> Who claims that they were incinerated, Jason?
>
>Well, lots of people did. Originally.
Name one.
>Hell, they said the PLANE disintegrated, originally.
It did, Jason. Into fairly small pieces.
>So the fire collapsed yet another building, but the bodies weren't
>burned?
Never said that, Jason.
>At least I can keep my viewpoint straight, drifter.
So do I slacker.
running with scissors
plenty. you are too fucking lazy or stupid to look it up.
what a cunt.
rms1
<age...@justicemail.com> wrote in message
news:lsca401ql270c0gr1...@4ax.com...
> >No 757 Hit The Pentagon - Proof
> >http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon
>
> Like I said, neither do you.
The facts are clear. There is no credible evidence that anything but a
plane crash occurred at the Pentagon on that infamous day. The evidence is
overwhelming, and too much to mention here. But some will see what they
want to see, believe what they want to believe.
Ralph Nesbitt
"Don Dirk of Dowdawee" <sp...@snuhco.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94A0AF4D082...@216.168.3.44...
> age...@justicemail.com wrote in news:v62a40ljnj93h9frtc23oaf88j8cvsdfjq@
> 4ax.com:
>
> > On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 17:02:16 -0000, Don Dirk of Dowdawee
> > <sp...@snuhco.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>> Yes. And every other credible news source and countless eyewitness
> >>> accounts. I'll take their word over a Usenet hack's anyday, thank you
> >>> very much.
> >>>
> >>>> You can't persuade morons, and what would be the point?
> >>>
> >>> Then you are wasting your energy and time - but you probably have a
> >>> lot of time on your hands after all.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Nice to see you don't a single supporting piece of evidence...
> >
> > Neither do you, Jason.
> >
>
> No 757 Hit The Pentagon - Proof
> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon
>
> --
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type
Ralph Nesbitt
"running with scissors" <aabbcc_running...@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:d0fe9d08.04030...@posting.google.com...
He would be so confused by all the out of context, twisted half truths,
reality disconnects, he would wonder what "Fool/Idiot" posted that
"Preposterous B/S".
coyotes rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
"Ralph Nesbitt" <ralph-...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> All that would be necessary is for Jason to review his on site while sober.
> He would be so confused by all the out of context, twisted half truths,
> reality disconnects, he would wonder what "Fool/Idiot" posted that
> "Preposterous B/S".
> Ralph Nesbitt
> Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type
hi this is ralph spoilsport at ralph spoilsport conspiracies and boy do i have a
deal for you
on sale now this genuine no previous owner used flying saucer it comes fully
equipped with five gigadyne tractor beams used to pull up your neighbors poodle
storm
into this fully padded genuine artifical wood laminated dissection table with
side blood gutters and seat belts at no extra charge
or would perhaps this one of a kind pyramid made of original limestone block
with hidden passages out of the queens and kings chamber opened up with a switch
at the top of the discard air vent from our own fully vent factory vent
manufactur
oldies but goldies here with the majesty herself the grande dame of shipping the
titantic examine buckled plates and decide for yourself if some mere iceberg
could do this or whether in fact the titantic had been rammed by a secret german
uboat developed with atlantean technology at this secret egyptian military base
in ultima thule
special offer today for this m16 used by jfk to assasinate jfk this ones going
fast but it be back again and again and again
or this folks the jewel here at ralph spoilsport conspiracies a full size 757
timestormed three years into the future and now on display area fifty one for
your viewing pleasure together with this detail minature scale model used in the
outrageously funny movie from 2001 -honey i flew the 757 into the pentagon-
thanks friends
AbsolutelyCertain
> > The diagrams in the referenced report will erase any doubts about the
> > nonsense on your cited website.
> >
> >
> >
>
> That was a crappy photo that showed nothing.
>
> You can do better than that, I hope.
Again, you state the exact opposite of what is correct. The report contains
many photos, diagrams, and other illustrations. These, along with the
report body, establish clearly that an airplane the size and shape of a
Boeing 757 struck, and entered, the building. I'd say that any moron can
come to this conclusion, if it weren't for the fact that you are apparently
one moron who can't seem to get it.
Step Three: Profit
news:%Od1c.135555$hR.25...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
What credible evidence?
Surely not any physical evidence...
Step Three: Profit
4ax.com:
Changing your tune yet again?
>>On the right side?
>>
>>A lie.
>
> Only in your damaged imagination.
Proof provided by FEMA...
That was not a single. contiguous hole. It was a series of holes.
>>>>Was there any damage from the tail?
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>
>>
>>Got a cite for that?
>
> It's been given to you.
No, you pointed at a smoky photo and said "See! see!".
Please elaborate on this mythical tail damage.
>>>>What happened to the engines?
>>>
>>> That has been covered before.
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>
>>Yes. Andy Carol tried. And then ran away...forever.
>>
>>All that talk of flying engines made him nervous.
>>
>>Say, aren't you a former flying engine proponent yourself?
>>
>>; )
>>
>>What made you change your tune?
>
> I've not changed any "tune", Jason.
So you still maintain the right engine flew over the Pentagon?
; )
>>>>>>Since there were no bodies at the Pentagon, that's presents a bit
of
>>a
>>>>>>problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> There were bodies at the Pentagon, Jason.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, clueless. People work at the Pentagon.
>>>
>>> But you just said that there were no bodies, Jason. Can't you make
up
>>> your mind?
>>
>>No bodies from a 757, which was my point.
>
> But that's not what you said, and there were bodies (and parts of
> bodies) from Flight 77 found in the rubble.
And what proof do you have of that? Hearsay?
>>>>>>Got any hard proof of plane passenger bodies?
>>>>>
>>>>> The coroner identified remains from all passengers.
>>>>
>>>>Even though they had been incinerated?
>>>
>>> Who claims that they were incinerated, Jason?
>>
>>Well, lots of people did. Originally.
>
> Name one.
Erm, how about the media?
>>Hell, they said the PLANE disintegrated, originally.
>
> It did, Jason. Into fairly small pieces.
>
>>So the fire collapsed yet another building, but the bodies weren't
>>burned?
>
> Never said that, Jason.
So this massive fire brought down the Pentagon, but didn't destroy the
bodies?
They identified nearly everyone, furthermore?
What are the odds? ; )
>
>>At least I can keep my viewpoint straight, drifter.
>
> So do I slacker.
Next we'll teach you proper punctuation.
Step Three: Profit
news:O5o1c.26252$ov4....@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com:
Is that why none of you can explain the seven anomolies on my site?
http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon
Step Three: Profit
news:c256jb$6hi$0...@pita.alt.net:
Ooh, diagrams and illustrations!
The photos don't support the claims.
I'd love to see some 757 debris, if you can find any. Seats, body parts,
luggage, aircraft parts?
Anything like that. you know, physical evidence.
rms1
"Step Three: Profit" <sp...@snuhco.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94A17E5BFFF...@216.168.3.44...
> What credible evidence?
>
> Surely not any physical evidence...
Numerous citations of physical evidence have already been provided. The
most comprehensive forensic investigation in U.S. history ended with the
identification of 184 of the 189 deaths at the Pentagon, including the
passengers from Flight 77. This is all not to mention the numerous
eyewitness accounts of the plane's flight and crash.
Burn the Flagheads
news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
Citations of physical evidence? Hearsay, you mean?
You might want to look at the 'eyewitness' testimony again, at some
point...
running with scissors
ahh but he is not just any moron. this moron is a prize cunt.
running with scissors
> age...@justicemail.com wrote in news:vv1a40l1mge1gebmsfo6oo8bisudjkd082@
> 4ax.com:
>
> > On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 02:10:21 -0000, Don Dirk of Dowdawee
> > <sp...@snuhco.com> wrote:
> >
> >>age...@justicemail.com wrote in
> news:0lq740hsddss4kakcairtjeh9kpaevb2h8@
> >>4ax.com:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 01:42:42 -0000, Don Dirk of Dowdawee
> >>> <sp...@snuhco.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>> And you have proof that Flight 77 was shot down or bombed? Didn't
> >>>>> think so.
> >>>>
> >>>>Then where is it?
> >>>
> >>> It was in the Pentagon on 9/11.
> >>
> >>The plane went into a 16 foot-wide hole, and didn't leave any wing
> parts
> >>outside?
> >
> > The hole the plane made was significantly wider than 16 feet, Jason.
>
> At the top?
>
> A lie.
>
> On the right side?
>
> A lie.
>
you fucking berk.
~Nins~
<snip>
|| 120 feet wide?
||
||
|| Got a picture to support this claim?
||
||
|| A *picture*.
||
|| disproves your claim, right?
||
||
||
||
|||
|||
||| above the center of the hole in the outside wall.
||
||
||
|| Cite?
||
|| Got a photo to support this claim?
I'll just insert here. Surveillance cameras showed the plane flying in
level, almost to the ground and coming very close to a vehicle which would
account for some photos appearing that the explosion was at ground level
thereby collapsing the upper level. The Pentagon is a reinforced building
and had it not been the damage would have been far more severe.
As far as structural columns not being damaged, there were about 4 dozen
more or less of the structural columns destroyed on the lower level, 1st
floor. You've seen the photos am sure and you still honestly believe it
wasn't an aircraft, despite the fact that an installation such as the
Pentagon would have surveillance cams on all the time covering the entire
circumference of the building, and those cams recorded a plane flying into
it?
You're just wanting to argue. Bored? ;)
running with scissors
your site is a pathetic piece of shit you stupid cunt
running with scissors
and your pathetic attempts at photoshop on your website are are credible
bwahahahhhahahhaha
stupid cunt.
running with scissors
> "AbsolutelyCertain" <eas...@entertained.net> wrote in
> news:c256jb$6hi$0...@pita.alt.net:
>
> >
> > "Don Dirk of Dowdawee" <sp...@snuhco.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns94A0B5248D3...@216.168.3.44...
> >> "AbsolutelyCertain" <eas...@entertained.net> wrote in
> >> news:c235b4$akb$0...@pita.alt.net:
>
> >> > The diagrams in the referenced report will erase any doubts about
> >> > the nonsense on your cited website.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> That was a crappy photo that showed nothing.
> >>
> >> You can do better than that, I hope.
> >
> > Again, you state the exact opposite of what is correct. The report
> > contains many photos, diagrams, and other illustrations. These, along
> > with the report body, establish clearly that an airplane the size and
> > shape of a Boeing 757 struck, and entered, the building. I'd say
> > that any moron can come to this conclusion, if it weren't for the fact
> > that you are apparently one moron who can't seem to get it.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Ooh, diagrams and illustrations!
>
> The photos don't support the claims.
>
>
and your childish website is the basis of your argument ?\
bwahhahhahahhahhahahah
stupid cunt.
running with scissors
> "rms1" <rm...@my-deja.com> wrote in news:f9q1c.68963$aH3.2106042@bgtnsc04-
> news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>
> >
> > "Step Three: Profit" <sp...@snuhco.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns94A17E5BFFF...@216.168.3.44...
> >
> >> What credible evidence?
> >>
> >> Surely not any physical evidence...
> >
> > Numerous citations of physical evidence have already been provided. The
> > most comprehensive forensic investigation in U.S. history ended with the
> > identification of 184 of the 189 deaths at the Pentagon, including the
> > passengers from Flight 77. This is all not to mention the numerous
> > eyewitness accounts of the plane's flight and crash.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Citations of physical evidence? Hearsay, you mean?
nah you wont accept any evidence. only your pathetic webiste.
stupid cunt.
CANZUS
Moron.
"Swedish Scat Team" <g...@buh.cuh> wrote in message
news:Xns949EE5659...@216.168.3.44...
> http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/9-11/Operation911.html
>
> HOME • Chronology of Terror • Bibliographies • Valuable Websites • About
> This Site • SITE MAP
> ACTION • NEWS • Solutions • Candles in the darkness • Revealing Quotes 1
> 2 3 4 • Letters • SEARCH
>
>
>
> “Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
> the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are
> being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
> exposing the country to danger.”
>
> — Herman Goering
> Nazi Air Force (Luftwaffe) commander
> at the Nuremberg Trials
>
>
>
> Operation 911:
> NO SUICIDE PILOTS
>
>
>
> Related sites • Related pages • Bibliography
>
>
>
> by Carol A. Valentine
> http://www.public-action.com/911/robotplane.html
> Curator, Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum
> http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> Northrop Grumman Global Hawk
>
>
>
> 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
> Global Hawk’s Australian manager Rod Smith.
>
> “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 flew across the ocean
> to Australia, defence officials confirmed.
>
> “The Global Hawk, a jet-powered aircraft with a wingspan equivalent to a
> Boeing 737...
> [NOTE: two of the aircraft involved in the 911 crashes were Boeing 757s,
> two were Boeing 767s]
> ...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.
>
> “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.”
>
> The article [was] available on the ITN website on September 19, at this
> URL:
>
> http://www.itn.co.uk/news/20010424/world/05robotplane.shtm
>
> [Added note from this website: Interestingly, the article has been
> removed by ITN. And, as of this writing, after manually searching through
> the pages of the itn.co.uk site I’ve found no searchbox that allows you
> even to search the site for the article. However the web.archive.org
> cached page below has an old ITN searchbox which still works. When a
> search for the words “global hawk” is done, an ITN message appears which
> says: “This page is not available”.]
>
> http://web.archive.org/web/20010707000937/http://itn.co.uk/news/20010424/
> world/05robotplane.shtm
> http://www.Public-Action.com/911/itn/
>
>
>
>
> ... And Now You Don’t
>
> Then, on September 20, 2001, The Economist published comments from a
> former boss of British Airways, Robert Ayling:
>
> “On autopilot into the future”
> “Robert Ayling, a former boss of British Airways, suggested in the
> Financial Times this week that aircraft could be commandeered from the
> ground and controlled remotely in the event of a hijack ...”
> (as quoted by KC (kette...@home.com) on alt.current-events.wtc
> explosion).
>
> So, even though the ITN article was published on April 24 [2001], 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,” 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.
>
>
>
>
> 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,” 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://ussliberty.org/
>
> 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
> reportedly said he did not care who was killed or what happened to the
> ship, he just didn’t want his allies embarrassed.
>
> 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 continue. Thirty-fourAmericans were
> killed and 171 wounded, thanks to the treason of an American president
> and defense secretary.
>
> 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.”
>
> Development of a terror campaign in the Miami and Washington, D.C. areas.
>
> Information on Operation Northwoods can be found in James Bamford’s Body
> of Secrets, (Doubleday, 2001), and at the following URLs.
>
> http://www.baltimoresun.com/bal-te.md.nsa24apr24.story
>
> http://www.earlham.edu/archive/opf-l/May-2001/msg00062.html
>
> http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/
>
> In other words, US allies and people within the US military establishment
> are not opposed to killing American servicemen and civilians, given the
> right goal.
>
>
>
>
> 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.”
> (Washington Post, “On flight 77: ‘Our Plane Is Being Hijacked.’”
> 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’s September 12 edition 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.” (pg. 11)
> (Washington Post, September 12, 2001, “On Flight 77: ’Our Plane Is Being
> Hijacked’, 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... 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 (U.S. 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,”
> 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 Christian Science Monitor story discussed below, in “Conversations
> 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.” (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. Those tapes are now presumed to be in the hands of
> federal law-enforcement officials, who arrived at the flight-control
> facility minutes after Flight 11 crashed into the World Trade Center. The
> tapes presumably could provide clues about the hijackers — and may become
> even more important if the plane’s ‘black boxes’ are damaged or never
> found.”
> (“Controllers’ tale of Flight 11,” The Christian Science Monitor,
> September 13, 2001.)
>
> So, yes, the same “federal law-enforcement” machinery that cooked up the
> David Koresh negotiation tapes and arranged to destroy the evidence at
> the Mt. Carmel Center in the April 19, [1993] inferno will be handling
> these records, too.
>
>
>
> Flight 175
>
> The Washington Post reported a similar story for United Airlines Flight
> 175, which crashed into the south tower of the World Trade Center tower
> at 9:06 a.m.
>
> “Less than 30 minutes into a journey that was to have taken six hours,
> Flight 175 took a sharp turn south into central New Jersey, near Trenton,
> an unusual diversion for a plane heading west, airline employees said. It
> then headed directly toward Manhattan.
>
> “Somewhere between Philadelphia and Newark — less than 90 minutes from
> Manhattan — the aircraft made its final radar contact, according to a
> statement released by United Airlines.”
> (Washington Post, “‘Everything Seemed Normal When They Left’ Boston
> Airport,” September 12, 2001, pg. A10.)
>
> Once again, there was no contemporaneous, detailed, first hand
> information from the air traffic controllers about communication from the
> air traffic controllers.
>
> Of course the controls would not respond to manual directions if they
> were under the control of Global Hawk.
>
>
>
> Flight 11/Flight 175 Hijacker Passport Found
>
> We have just mentioned the distinct possibility that the masterminds of
> Operation 911 will manufacture evidence. Well, here is a CNN story for
> your consideration:
>
> “In New York, several blocks from the ruins of the World Trade Center, a
> passport authorities said belonged to one of the hijackers was discovered
> a few days ago, according to city Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik. That
> has prompted the FBI and police to widen the search area beyond the
> immediate crash site.”
> (“Leaders urge ‘normal’ Monday after week of terror...,” September 16,
> 2001 Posted: 7:07p.m. EDT (2307 GMT)
> http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/gen.america.under.attack/
>
> We are asked to believe that one of the hijackers brought his passport
> with him on a domestic fight, even though he knew he would not need it
> then, or ever again; that upon impact the passport flew from the
> hijacker’s pocket (or was he holding it in his hands?), that the passport
> flew out of the aircraft, that it flew out of the burning tower, and that
> it was carried by the air currents and landed safely, where it could be
> discovered, several blocks away...
>
> Lawd, WHO WRITES THIS STUFF?
>
>
>
> Flight 93
>
> United Airlines Flight 93, a Boeing 757, was scheduled to leave Newark
> Airport at 8:01 a.m. for San Francisco. We are told it crashed into an
> abandoned coal mine near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, at 10:37 a.m., one
> hour and 50 minutes after the first World Trade Center tower was hit.
>
> Without a doubt, Flight 93 was shot down. The first TV network reports
> said exactly that: Flight 93 had been shot down by a military jet. That
> information even made it into the print media.
>
> “Local residents said they had seen a second plane in the area, possibly
> an F-16 fighter, and burning debris falling from the sky. [FBI Agent]
> Crowley said investigators had determined that two other planes were
> nearby but didn’t know if either was military.”
> (“Stories swirl around Pa. crash; black box found,” USA Today, September
> 14, 2001.)
>
> “Pieces of the wreckage have been found as far away as New Baltimore,
> about eight miles from the crash site. When the eastbound plane crashed,
> a 9-knot wind was blowing from the southeast,” [FBI Agent] Crowley said.
> (“Bereaved may visit Flight 93 site,” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Friday,
> September 14, 2001.)
>
> On September 11, “[r]esidents and workers at businesses outside
> Shanksville, Somerset County, reported discovering clothing, books,
> papers, and what appear to be human remains. Some residents said they
> collected bags-full of items to be turned over to investigators. Others
> reported what appeared to be crash debris floating in Indian Lake, nearly
> six miles from the crash site.”
> (“Investigators locate ‘black box’ from Flight 93; widen search area in
> Somerset crash,” [Pittsburgh] Post Gazette, September 13, 2001.)
> http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetp3.asp
>
> The Washington Post reported that, just as Congressional leaders were
> discussing shooting the plane down, they learned it had crashed.
> (”Jetliner Was Diverted Toward Washington Before Crash in Pa,” Sept. 12,
> 2001, pg. A10.)
> The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and the FBI denied
> that the plane had been shot down.
>
> The FBI blamed the spread of debris over an 8-mile area on a 10 mph wind
> that was blowing at the time. Of the debris, TIME Magazine of September
> 11 says:
>
> “The largest pieces of the plane still extant are barely bigger than a
> telephone book.”
> (Pages in this edition are not numbered: this quote appears on what
> should be pg. 40).
>
> Planes that crash do not disintegrate in this manner. However, the
> assertion that the hijackers had a bomb on board, and the bomb exploded,
> might provide an explanation for the disintegration.
>
> There is a problem with this story, however: Hijackers who planned to
> crash the plane into the Capitol would not want, or need, a bomb. In
> fact, a bomb might be counterproductive: Suppose it went off before
> hitting the plane hit the Capitol? The mission would be ruined. Bringing
> a bomb on board would greatly increase chances the hijacker who carried
> the bomb would be detected when boarding. And it’s hard to imagine why
> hijackers would mutilate and dismember passengers with plastic knives and
> box cutters when they were planning to blow them up, anyway. No, the bomb
> story does not wash. You can read one such story at:
> http://www.msnbc.com/news/632626.asp
>
>
>
> More Missing Air Traffic Control Conversations
>
> According to an ABC news report by Peter Dizikes on September 13:
>
> “Federal Aviation Administration data shows Flight 93 followed its normal
> flight plan until it neared Cleveland, where the plane took a hard turn
> south.
>
> “That marks the point at which the plane must have been hijacked,
> investigators say. Then it took a turn east.”
>
> Note that the investigators used the phrase “must have been” hijacked.
> Didn’t they know? Weren’t the air traffic controllers in touch with the
> pilots? But the direction changes with the next paragraph:
>
> “ABCTVNEWS has learned that shortly before the plane changed directions,
> someone in the cockpit radioed in and asked the FAA for a new flight
> plan, with a final destination of Washington.”
>
> Now THAT conversation must have been interesting! You can imagine the
> response of the air traffic controller: “Excuse me? Flight 93, you’re in
> the middle of a scheduled trip to San Francisco, but you’re just changed
> your mind and want to spend the day in Washington? Please explain.”
>
> According to an MSNBC story of September 22, 2001, Flight 93 was late
> taking off, and did not make its way down the runway until 8:41 a.m.
> (“The Final Moments of Flight 93" http://www.msnbc.com/news/632626.asp)
>
> It was aloft for almost two hours, crashing at 10:37 a.m. Making a rough
> estimate from the distances traveled and the time in the air (see TIME
> Magazine, September 11, “The Paths of Destruction”), Flight 93 went off
> course sometime between 9:45 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. Recall that both towers
> had been hit by 9:06 a.m., and the New York airports had been closed
> since 9:17 a.m. It would have been impossible for an air traffic
> controller on duty between 9:45—10:00 a.m. not to know that commercial
> air traffic in the US was in a dire emergency from “suicide planes.”
>
> And now Flight 93 calls in, asking permission to do a U-turn, fly east an
> hour and a half, and land in Washington DC ??? What, the pilot was
> nervous and didn’t know there were airports in the midwest?
>
> I’d love to hear the REAL conversation between Flight 93 and the air
> traffic controllers, wouldn’t you? But I think we’ll have to wait a
> while...
>
> Come to think of it, why would a hijacker call in to ask for an OK to
> change directions?
>
>
>
> Conflicting And Unbelievable Reports
>
> The networks dropped the story that Flight 93 had been shot down and now
> said that Flight 93 passengers called their families and described a
> hijacking. The hijackers were armed with box razors, and overwhelmed the
> passengers and crew, and told the passengers they planned to crash into
> the Capitol in Washington, DC. The hijackers also mutilated and
> dismembered the passengers, presumably with their plastic knives and box
> cutters. What a messy job that must have been! We were not told if the
> hijackers chatted to the passengers about their plans before, after, or
> while they were committing the mutilation/dismemberment. (I heard the
> mutilation/dismemberment story once while watching network TV coverage.
> Then the story was dropped.)
>
> On the other hand, TIME Magazine reported that one of the passengers
> called home to say: “We have been hijacked. They are being kind.”
> (TIME, Sept. 24, pg. 73.)
>
> Are we believing this? I’m not.
>
> No. Something went wrong with the masterminds’ plan. They could not
> afford to have Flight 93 make a conventional landing and allow the pilots
> and passengers to talk about their experience. They could not afford to
> have the “hijackers” survive and the electronic controls of the plane
> examined. So Flight 93 was shot down.
>
>
>
> Who Were Those People, Anyway?
>
> Before September 11, the combined forces of US military and domestic
> intelligence — the CIA, the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the
> National Security Agency — were clueless that such a catastrophic event
> would occur. Yet a day or so later, the FBI had secured the names and
> mugshots of each of the 19 hijackers. How did the FBI know who the
> hijackers were? After all, all the eyewitnesses are dead. How could the
> FBI distinguish between “regular” Muslims and hijacker Muslims on those
> flights? Or did they just go through the passenger lists culling out the
> Muslim-sounding names and labeling the people bearing those names as
> hijackers? “You’re Muslim so you’re a hijacker...”
>
> On September 30 I looked at the passenger lists of those four flights. To
> my surprise, the lists contained none of the hijackers’ names. Here are
> the URLs I checked:
>
> http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html
> http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html
> http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua175.victims.html
> http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua93.victims.html
>
> Then I went searching on Usenet for more information. I found that
> <AF...@webtv.net> had noticed the hijackers’ names were not on the
> passenger lists on September 27, on alt.culture.alaska, “Re: BLACK BOXES
> AND BODIES -(2).” I don’t know what you’ll find when you look at the
> passenger lists, but the historical record is there.
>
> The FBI may be lying, of course, and the airlines telling the truth:
> Perhaps none of the “hijackers” were passengers on those four planes.
>
> If that is true, the airlines are helping the FBI commit a most grievous
> fraud on the public. What does that say for the airlines’ integrity? In
> either case, we can place little confidence in the veracity of the
> information in those lists. Names could have been added just as easily as
> they may have been deleted.
>
>
>
> Don’t Take The Credit, Take The Blame
>
> By now you’ve realized that it’s OK to believe in conspiracies provided
> they are Muslim conspiracies. In fact, we MUST believe that a man who
> dresses in sheets and lives in a tent or a cave in the middle of nowhere
> — Osama bin Laden — was the mastermind. He used his $300 million fortune
> to pull off Operation 911. Come to think of it, how do we know the size
> of his fortune? Does the FBI know his banker? And given that the world’s
> banking system is highly centralized and in the hands of Mr. bin Laden’s
> avowed enemies, how could our terrorist tent-dweller have retained his
> fortune all these years? If Mr. bin Laden could have pulled this off in
> New York, why didn’t he pick on his more direct enemy, Israel, and do a
> 911 on them?
>
> Brilliant as Mr. bin Laden is, he forgot to take credit for the attack.
> Even worse, he forgot to issue any demands. He allowed his operatives to
> use their Muslim names and leave a clear trail for the FBI to follow. Mr.
> Atta, the pilot of Flight 11 (north World Trade Center), was particularly
> helpful. He kindly left his car at the Boston Airport. Luckily, an
> unnamed source drew the FBI’s attention to this car. According to radio
> reports, the FBI found a suicide note written in Arabic and a copy of the
> Koran in the car. Mr. Atta liked to write in Arabic; he wrote a second,
> long document in that language, which, for some reason, he put in his
> luggage.
>
> Coincidentally, this luggage did not make it to Flight 11, so the FBI
> found it at the airport. Another lucky break! But why Mr. Atta would take
> luggage on a suicide mission has not been explained. The same note was
> carried by one of the hijackers on Flight 93, and, Mother of Miracles!
> survived the crash, even though the airplane itself was torn into shards.
> Everything was so amazing that Bob Woodward, the man who talks to the
> dead, was called in to write a story about it all.
>
> See “In Hijacker’s Bags: a Call to Planning, Prayer, and Death,” The
> Washington Post, September 28, 2001. Formerly at:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37629 2001Sep27.html
>
> Read Mr. Woodward’s article. Mr. Atta sounds like a Jewish lawyer with
> his wires crossed, exhorting his co-conspirators to remember their wills
> and reminding them that Mohammed was an “optimist;” exhorting his fellows
> to “utilize” (ugh — there’s a lawyer’s word for you — what’s Arabic for
> “utilize”?) their few hours left to ask God’s forgiveness. God’s
> forgiveness for what? They were about to die heros, martyrs in the good
> cause...
>
> Sure, we believe every word. We swallow the whole story.
>
> On the other hand, here is the International Television News article on
> the Global Hawk:
>
>
>
> Robot plane flies Pacific unmanned
> http://web.archive.org/web/20010707000937/http://itn.co.uk/news/20010424/
> world/05robotplane.shtm
> http://www.Public-Action.com/911/itn/
> (ITN Entertainment April 24, 2001)
>
> “The aircraft essentially flies itself, right from take-off, right
> through to landing, and even taxiing off the runway.”
>
> — Australian Global Hawk manager Rod Smith
>
>
>
> 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 flew 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.
>
> The 8600 mile (13840 km) flight, at an altitude of almost 12.5 miles (20
> km), took 22 hours and set a world record for the furthest a robotic
> aircraft has flown between two points.
>
> The Global Hawk 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.
>
> “The aircraft essentially flies itself, right from takeoff, right through
> to landing, and even taxiing off the runway,” said Rod Smith, the
> Australian Global Hawk manager.
>
> While in Australia, the Global Hawk will fly about 12 maritime
> surveillance and reconnaissance missions around Australia’s remote
> coastline.
>
> It can fly non-stop for 36 hours and search 52,895 square miles (37,000
> square km) in 24 hours. Australia is assessing the aircraft and might buy
> it in the future.
>
> “Emerging systems such as the Global Hawk offer Australia great potential
> for surveillance, reconnaissance and ultimately the delivery of combat
> power,” said Brendan Nelson, parliamentary secretary to the Australian
> defence minister.
>
> Nelson said the Global Hawk could be used in combat to “detect, classify
> and monitor” targets as they approached the Australian coast.
>
>
>
> Carol A. Valentine
> President, Public Action, Inc.
> Copyright, October 8, 2001.
> May be reproduced for non-commercial purposes.
>
> Have you seen the Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum?
> See what they did to the mothers and children
> http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/
>
>
>
>
>
> Related pages
>
>
>
> 9-11 Was a Mossad “False Flag Operation”
>
>
>
> 9-11, Mossad, the CIA and “False Flag Operations”
>
>
>
> The United States Government Committed the September 11 Attacks
>
>
>
> America: the Ultimate Terrorist
>
>
>
> The Israeli Connection To 9-11
>
>
>
> Fox News Special Report: Israeli Spying on the U.S.
>
>
>
> Massive Israeli Spy Ring Linked to September 11
>
>
>
> The CIA, Insider Trading and the World Trade Center Terror Attack
>
>
>
> Fake Terror: the Road to Dictatorship
>
>
>
>
>
> Related sites
>
>
>
> GUILTY FOR 9-11: BUSH, RUMSFELD, MYERS
> http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-1.htm
>
> “Andrews Air Force Base is a huge military installation just 10 miles
> from the Pentagon.
>
> “On 11 September there were two entire squadrons of combat-ready fighter
> jets at Andrews. Their job was to protect the skies over Washington D.C.
> They failed to do their job. Despite over one hour’s advance warning of a
> terrorist attack in progress, not a single Andrews fighter tried to
> protect the city.”
>
>
>
>
> ARE AMERICANS THE VICTIMS OF A HOAX?
> http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hoax.html
>
> “The time has come to stop using the flag as a blindfold, to stop waving
> our guns and our gods at each other, to take a close look at the facts
> which have emerged from the attacks on the World Trade Towers and to
> recognize the very real possibility, indeed probability, that We The
> People are the victims of a gigantic and deadly hoax.”
>
>
>
>
> Stan Goff: The So-Called Evidence Is A Farce
> http://www.truefacts.co.uk/cgi-bin/trufax.cgi?a=110901l
>
> “I’m a retired Special Forces Master Sergeant. ... I studied and taught
> military science and doctrine. I was a tactics instructor at the Jungle
> Operations Training Center in Panama, and I taught Military Science at
> West Point. ...
>
> “Based on that experience, and operations in eight designated conflict
> areas from Vietnam to Haiti, I have to say that the story we hear on the
> news and read in the newspapers is simply not believable. The most
> cursory glance at the verifiable facts, before, during, and after
> September 11th, does not support the official line or conform to the
> current actions of the United States government.”
>
>
>
>
> US planned war in Afghanistan long before September 11
> http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov2001/afgh-n20.shtml
>
> “The United States ruling elite has been contemplating war in Central
> Asia for at least a decade. ... American oil companies have acquired
> rights to as much as 75 percent of the output of these new [Caspian Sea
> oil] fields, and US government officials have hailed the Caspian and
> Central Asia as a potential alternative to dependence on oil from the
> unstable Persian Gulf region.
>
> “The major problem in exploiting the energy riches of Central Asia is how
> to get the oil and gas from the landlocked region to the world market.
> ...US oil companies and government officials have explored...pipeline
> routes...south from Turkmenistan across western Afghanistan and Pakistan
> to the Indian Ocean.”
>
>
>
>
> Homeland Insecurity:
> Phoenix, Chaos, The Enterprise, and the Politics of Terror in America
> by Douglas Valentine
> http://www.counterpunch.org/homeland1.html
>
> “This ability to commit the most horrific acts of terror, and
> successfully blame them on its enemies through black propaganda, is what
> makes the CIA’s inclusion in the OHS [Office of Homeland Security] so
> dangerous.
>
> “This one-two punch, in conjunction with the CIA’s expertise at ‘provoked
> responses’ and ‘false flag recruitments,’ also makes the CIA itself a
> prime suspect in the terror attacks of 11 September, and the current
> propaganda campaign being waged in America now, as a pretext to threaten
> terror against the Bush Administration’s domestic political opponents, as
> well as to win support from the terrified middle class for the
> illegitimate Bush regime.”
>
>
>
>
> USS LIBERTY Memorial
> http://ussliberty.org/
>
> “This web site is dedicated to the memory of thirty-four fine young men
> who gave their lives on June 8, 1967, defending the USS Liberty against a
> sustained air and sea attack by the armed forces of the State of Israel.”
>
>
>
>
> Websites with information on Operation Northwoods:
>
>
>
> sunspot.net - maryland’s online community
> http://www.baltimoresun.com/bal-te.md.nsa24apr24.story
>
> “U.S. military leaders proposed in 1962 a secret plan to commit terrorist
> acts against Americans and blame Cuba to create a pretext for invasion
> and the ouster of Communist leader Fidel Castro, according to a new book
> about the National Security Agency.”
>
>
>
>
> [Opf-l] Operation Northwoods: acts of terrorism that never happened
> http://www.earlham.edu/archive/opf-l/May-2001/msg00062.html
>
> “In the early 1960s, America’s top military leaders reportedly drafted
> plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities
> to create public support for a war against Cuba.
>
> “Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the
> possible assassination of Cuban emigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees
> on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even
> orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.”
>
>
>
>
> Pentagon Proposed Pretexts for Cuba Invasion in 1962
> http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/
>
> “In his new exposé of the National Security Agency entitled Body of
> Secrets, author James Bamford highlights a set of proposals on Cuba by
> the Joint Chiefs of Staff codenamed OPERATION NORTHWOODS.
>
> “This document, titled ‘Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in
> Cuba’ was provided by the JCS to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on
> March 13, 1962, as the key component of Northwoods. Written in response
> to a request from the Chief of the Cuba Project, Col. Edward Lansdale,
> the Top Secret memorandum describes U.S. plans to covertly engineer
> various pretexts that would justify a U.S. invasion of Cuba.
>
> “These proposals - part of a secret anti-Castro program known as
> Operation Mongoose - included staging the assassinations of Cubans living
> in the United States, developing a fake ‘Communist Cuban terror campaign
> in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington,’
> including ‘sink[ing] a boatload of Cuban refugees (real or simulated),’
> faking a Cuban airforce attack on a civilian jetliner, and concocting a
> ‘Remember the Maine’ incident by blowing up a U.S. ship in Cuban waters
> and then blaming the incident on Cuban sabotage. Bamford himself writes
> that Operation Northwoods ‘may be the most corrupt plan ever created by
> the U.S. government.’”
>
>
>
>
> Pentagon documents detail provocations against Cuba
> http://www.wsws.org/public_html/iwb12-8/cuba.htm
>
> “The Pentagon offered a wide range of options for manufacturing a pretext
> to attack Cuba. In one memo it proposed using Soviet-made MIG fighter
> planes piloted by Americans to shoot down either a US warplane or a
> ‘civil airliner en route from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala,
> Panama or Venezuela.’ The downing of the plane would then be blamed on
> Cuba and the US would launch a massive assault on the island.
>
> “Another document declared: ‘We could develop a Communist Cuban terror
> campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in
> Washington.’”
>
>
>
>
>
> Bibliography
>
>
> Body of Secrets:
> Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency
> from the Cold War Through the Dawn of a New Century
> by James Bamford
> Doubleday, 2001; ISBN 0-385-49907-8
>
>
>
> In 1962, U.S. military leaders had a plan for conducting terrorist acts
> against Americans while blaming Cuba. Codenamed “Operation Northwoods”,
> the plan was intended to provide the propaganda necessary to create
> popular sentiment for an invasion of Cuba.
>
> See Amazon.com’s 45 free sample pages
>
>
>
>
> Bin Laden, the Forbidden Truth
> by Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie
> published originally in France as Bin Laden, la Verite Interdite
>
> This book reveals that FBI deputy director John O’Neill resigned in July
> 2001 to protest official U.S. government obstruction of his investigation
> of terrorism.
>
> The authors report that O’Neill told them: “The main obstacles to
> investigate Islamic terrorism were U.S. oil corporate interests and the
> role played by Saudi Arabia in it.”
>
> Osama bin Laden is a Saudi who has worked with the CIA since the 1980s,
> when they supplied him with U.S.-made Stinger missiles so his forces
> could shoot down Russian helicopters in Afghanistan.
>
>
>
>
> Rogue State:
> A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower
> by William Blum
>
>
>
> The Real Terror Network:
> Terrorism in Fact and Propaganda
> by Edward S. Herman
>
>
>
> Pirates and Emperors, Old and New:
> International Terrorism in the Real World
> by Noam Chomsky
>
>
>
> Western State Terrorism
> Alexander George, editor; essays by Noam Chomsky, Edward S. Herman, Gerry
> O’Sullivan and others
>
>
>
> The Fire This Time:
> U.S. War Crimes in the Gulf
> by Ramsey Clark
>
>
>
> Desert Slaughter:
> The Imperialist War Against Iraq
> by the Workers League
>
>
>
> The Culture of Terrorism
> by Noam Chomsky
>
>
>
> Terrorizing the Neighborhood:
> American Foreign Policy in the Post-Cold War Era
> by Noam Chomsky
> Pressure Drop Press, 1991
>
>
>
>
> Killing Hope:
> U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since WWII
> by William Blum
>
>
>
> The Phoenix Program
> by Douglas Valentine
>
>
>
> Against Empire
> by Michael Parenti
>
>
>
> The Sword and the Dollar:
> Imperialism, Revolution and the Arms Race
> by Michael Parenti
>
>
>
> What Uncle Sam Really Wants
> by Noam Chomsky
>
>
>
> Deadly Deceits:
> My 25 years in the CIA
> by Ralph W. McGehee
>
>
>
> A People’s History of the United States:
> 1492 — Present
> by Howard Zinn
>
>
>
> Bloody Hell:
> The Price Soldiers Pay
> by Daniel Hallock
>
>
>
> Corporate Predators:
> The Hunt for Mega-Profits and the Attack on Democracy
> by Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman
>
>
>
> Derailing Democracy:
> The America the Media Don’t Want You to See
> by David McGowan
>
>
>
> The Decline and Fall of the American Empire
> by Gore Vidal
>
>
>
> Saving Private Power:
> The Hidden History of “The Good War”
> by Michael Zezima
>
>
>
> The Continuing Terror Against Libya
> by Fan Yew Teng
>
>
>
> The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb
> by Gar Alperovitz
>
>
>
> The Habits of Highly Deceptive Media:
> Decoding Spin and Lies in Mainstream News
> by Norman Solomon
>
>
>
> Inventing Reality:
> The Politics of News Media
> by Michael Parenti
>
>
>
> Manufacturing Consent:
> The Political Economy of the Mass Media
> by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky
>
>
>
> Toxic Sludge is Good for You!:
> Lies, Damn Lies and the Public Relations Industry
> by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton
>
>
>
> The Hidden Persuaders:
> What makes us buy, believe – and even vote – the way we do?
> by Vance Packard
>
>
>
> War, Lies & Videotape:
> How media monopoly stifles truth
> edited by Lenora Foerstel; multiple authors
>
>
>
>
>
> HOME • Chronology of Terror • Bibliographies • Valuable Websites
>
> ACTION • Solutions • Candles in the darkness • About This Site
>
> NEWS • Revealing Quotes 1 2 3 4 • Letters • SEARCH • SITE MAP
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
running with scissors
> Idiot. No investigater seriously believes that a plane hit the Pentagon.
> Moron.
>
only those of complete fucking ignorance believe one didnt.
stupid cunt.
Captain Pissy
news:54y1c.33534$ko6.327154@attbi_s02:
> Don Dirk of Dowdawee wrote:
> <snip>
>|| 120 feet wide?
>||
>||
>|| Got a picture to support this claim?
>||
>||
>|| A *picture*.
>||
>|| You do know that the entire right side of the Pentagon damage
>|| disproves your claim, right?
>||
>|| The columns, etc. were still there. So how do you get 120 feet wide?
>||
>||
>||
>|||
>|||| Was there any damage from the tail?
>|||
>||| Yes. The vertical stabilizer left marks on the Pentagon's facade
>||| above the center of the hole in the outside wall.
>||
>||
>||
>|| Cite?
>||
>|| Got a photo to support this claim?
>
> I'll just insert here. Surveillance cameras showed the plane flying
> in level, almost to the ground and coming very close to a vehicle
> which would account for some photos appearing that the explosion was
> at ground level thereby collapsing the upper level. The Pentagon is a
> reinforced building and had it not been the damage would have been far
> more severe.
>
Blah blah blah. Show me a 757...
> As far as structural columns not being damaged, there were about 4
> dozen more or less of the structural columns destroyed on the lower
> level, 1st floor.
Meaningless...
> You've seen the photos am sure and you still
> honestly believe it wasn't an aircraft, despite the fact that an
> installation such as the Pentagon would have surveillance cams on all
> the time covering the entire circumference of the building, and those
> cams recorded a plane flying into it?
Heh. You're funny...
> You're just wanting to argue. Bored? ;)
No 757 Hit the Pentagon, You Idiot
http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon
AbsolutelyCertain
"Captain Pissy" <piss.right@off> wrote in message
news:Xns94A2B0E82C...@216.168.3.44...
Actually, the opposite is correct, as usual with you. Any proper
examination of the damage signature left behind in the building will show
that an airplane the size and shape of a Boeing 757 struck and entered the
structure. As I have said to you for about a year now, any eighth grader
could look at the evidence and figure this out. Actually, you have figured
it out, too. You just need more attention.
Captain Pissy
news:c28e46$h80$0...@pita.alt.net:
Please show me evidence on this page of Pentagon Photos:
http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon
Pay attention to the still images...
Michael Williamson
> "AbsolutelyCertain" <eas...@entertained.net> wrote in
>
> Please show me evidence on this page of Pentagon Photos:
> http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon
>
> Pay attention to the still images...
I wouldn't expect to find evidence of anything on
that page, as it has never appeared that the author
of the page made any attempt to post any. I haven't
seen any evidence that the folks responsible for that
page would even be able to recognize, much less interpret,
evidence if it came out of giant evidence bin, with
flashing lights and a wailing siren...
Mike
CANZUS
"running with scissors" <aabbcc_running...@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:d0fe9d08.04030...@posting.google.com...
Which one didn't, you non English spelling poltroon?
~Nins~
Well, calling people idiots really helps your credibility.......not. ;)
~Nins~
Let's just call that a quick sarcasm post of mine. ;) Credibility in the
sense that, I for one, don't give much regard to statements of those who
refer to others as idiots. Opinion is tainted. That sort of thing. Get
it?
Captain Pissy
news:4047D18...@coxNO.netSPAM:
Thank you for that utterly empty, worthless statement.
Captain Pissy
He's one of the idiots...
Captain Pissy
@news.supernews.com:
> Hmmm. Yeah, I dig.
>
> I meant credibility as in: he has none.
>
> Get it?
>
> Jerry
>
>
I have at least as much credibility as you, guy...
Captain Pissy
> That's not very nice, Captain Pussy.
>
> Jerry
>
>
The sooner you come to grips with your true nature, the better off you will
be.
Ralph Nesbitt
"running with scissors" <aabbcc_running...@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:d0fe9d08.04030...@posting.google.com...
Ralph Nesbitt
"Captain Pissy" <piss.right@off> wrote in message
>
> > Mike
> >
> >
>
> Thank you for that utterly empty, worthless statement.
>
mellester because the "meanee" laughed at you. Perhaps if you added some of
your music to the site it might receive the true "Review's" it deserves.
Ralph Nesbitt
"JL Grasso" <jerry_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:104g2u1...@news.supernews.com...
> you that? That's too well-structured for you to just stumble onto.
>
> Jerry
>
Jerry, I just don't understand why you aren't so thankful for being offered
the "deep insights" of such a sophisticated/distinguished world traveler as
"Captain Pissy" appears to be.
~Nins~
||
|| I meant credibility as in: he has none.
||
|| Get it?
Ohhh, let there be light, you were using a bit of sarcastic wit there.
Gotcha! [Maybe we should take it easy on the Capt., I wouldn't want to hurt
anyone's feelings, no matter if he doesn't mind hurting others' feelings.
Uh-oh, my wimpness is showing again. Oh well...]
~Nins~
|| On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 04:52:37 -0000, Captain Pissy <piss.right@off>
|| wrote:
||
Nooo, 'Pissy', not with a 'u'. Let's get it all right, guys. Come on now,
get with the program. [This is my goofiness which usually shows up when I'm
super-tired or just bored.]
Captain Pissy
> On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 04:52:37 -0000, Captain Pissy <piss.right@off>
> wrote:
>
> We're the guys without the mullet hairdos.
>
> Jerry
>
>
Sure you are.
Captain Pissy
> Yeah, it's not often one is exposed to the level of worldly experience
> that Jason can offer. Why, just having your musick rejected by the
> refined palates of death-metal fans is probably more experience than
> most of us will have in a lifetime. Not to mention the incarcerations.
>
> Jerry
>
>
You're so behind the times, fanboy.
Captain Pissy
> On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 16:54:01 -0000, Captain Pissy <piss.right@off>
> I assume that's filed under hiphop due to the lack of a 'dipshit'
> genre in their database.
>
> Bwaaaaaahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahw! That is rich!
>
> Jerry
>
>
So easily amused, Jerry.
Captain Pissy
> On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 16:50:55 -0000, Captain Pissy <piss.right@off>
> wrote:
>
>>JL Grasso <jerry_...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>news:104g2d5...@news.supernews.com:
>>
>>> On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 04:52:37 -0000, Captain Pissy <piss.right@off>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"~Nins~" <nin...@mchsi.com> wrote in
>>>>news:NzT1c.45839$PR3.945284@attbi_s03:
>>>>
>>>>> JL Grasso wrote:
>>>>>|| On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 02:48:29 GMT, "~Nins~" <nin...@mchsi.com>
>>>>>|| wrote:
>>>>>||
>>>>>||| Captain Pissy wrote:
>>>>>||||| No 757 Hit the Pentagon, You Idiot
>>>>>||||| http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon
>>>>>|||
>>>>>||| Well, calling people idiots really helps your
>>>>>||| credibility.......not. ;)
>>>>>||
>>>>>|| What credibility would that be?
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's just call that a quick sarcasm post of mine. ;) Credibility
>>>>> in the sense that, I for one, don't give much regard to statements
>>>>> of those who refer to others as idiots. Opinion is tainted. That
>>>>> sort of thing. Get it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>He's one of the idiots...
>>>
>>> We're the guys without the mullet hairdos.
>>>
>>> Jerry
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Sure you are.
>
> No, really. There are indeed people outside of your trailer park group
> who are actually humored by this type of haircut. Many people in the
> world do *not* wear mullets.
>
> Venture out sometime.
>
> Briefly, please.
>
> Jerry
>
>
I'm going to need a few more cliches from you, first.
Ralph Nesbitt
> their database.
>
> Bwaaaaaahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahwahw! That is rich!
>
> Jerry
>
"Worlds greatest Guitarist". On second thought is there a recording studio
so "Hard Up" for business they would record them.
Laurence Doering
>
> Consider Jason's group getting together with Johnny A., the self proclaimed
> "Worlds greatest Guitarist".
Hey, you gotta say one thing for Jason -- at least he doesn't
post endless alleged comments from reviewers about what a great
drummer he is. Maybe that's the difference between guitarists and
drummers, or maybe it's just because Jason's band has yet to get
its first gig and he's still just rocking the hell out of his mom's
basement.
ljd
running with scissors
perfect response for a stupid cunt.
running with scissors
you know what ralph, who knows what goes on in the monds ofthese
pathetic 'spiracy theorists.
running with scissors
on the pots and pans.
Target Marketing
How.
To.
Spell.
running with scissors
> Learn.
>
> How.
>
> To.
>
> Spell.
s t u p i d c u n t
Target Marketing
A stupid, trailer-dwelling fried chicken neck gobbling tiny-dicked
dog-porking pus-encrusted urine-soaked cross-eyed syphilitic
gap-toothed loser who responds to my every pointless post
and knows less than nothing about anything and/or everything,
and can be counted on to post about it, no matter how wrong
his opinions are. So get buggered sideways on Mars by
rabid sea urchins and do not post again to any newsgroups
until you receive permission from me, the almighty Usenet
moderator and system administrator. I have an A.A. degree
from upstairs Milpitas technical training center, so certainly
do not be taunting me again, or I shall be forced to reply
to a completely unrelated newsgroup, and you will have
to find my reply and print it out before he can let you know
that it is time to reply to my earlier post that you mentioned
in your badly-worded reply in the previous thread that you
started when I replied to your incorrect comment about
that airplane thingy that you are incapable of shutting
the fuck up about already so go ahead and make a feeble
attempt to string some ASCII characters together to
try to attempt to create a "newsgroup post" and actually
try to attempt to post it, if you have any idea of whatever
it was we were posting about in the first place, you dork.
r<aabbcc_running...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d0fe9d08.04030...@posting.google.com...
running with scissors
> Hello. You are a stupid cunt. A stupid, illitirit cunt who cunt spell.
> A stupid, trailer-dwelling fried chicken neck gobbling tiny-dicked
> dog-porking pus-encrusted urine-soaked cross-eyed syphilitic
> gap-toothed loser who responds to my every pointless post
> and knows less than nothing about anything and/or everything,
> and can be counted on to post about it, no matter how wrong
> his opinions are. So get buggered sideways on Mars by
> rabid sea urchins and do not post again to any newsgroups
> until you receive permission from me, the almighty Usenet
> moderator and system administrator. I have an A.A. degree
> from upstairs Milpitas technical training center, so certainly
> do not be taunting me again, or I shall be forced to reply
> to a completely unrelated newsgroup, and you will have
> to find my reply and print it out before he can let you know
> that it is time to reply to my earlier post that you mentioned
> in your badly-worded reply in the previous thread that you
> started when I replied to your incorrect comment about
> that airplane thingy that you are incapable of shutting
> the fuck up about already so go ahead and make a feeble
> attempt to string some ASCII characters together to
> try to attempt to create a "newsgroup post" and actually
> try to attempt to post it, if you have any idea of whatever
> it was we were posting about in the first place, you dork.
>
>
>
perfect post for a stupid cunt. congratulations.
ZZBunker
is that drummers are rich, since they can play
pianos, and play Mick Jagger like a fiddle,
but guitarists can only sweep their
mom's basement.
>
>
> ljd