Eric5273 said:
We're obviously never going to agree on any of this, so no point in debating much further. But I appreciate your responses and I have forwarded them to one of my friends who actually is a researcher, unlike me who just reads this stuff as a hobby.
Um, Thanks?
You just need to realize that there are many experts and Air Force pilots who completely disagree with you on this stuff.
I request that you find me ONE actual U.S. Air Force pilot who thinks that jets on 9/11 were flown under remote control. One, verifiable pilot who has actual contact info who I can personally get in touch with.
The folks at 9/11 Citizens watch have spent more time investigating this stuff than the 9/11 Commission has. They do not believe every theory that they get, and have discounted most of them, including the stupid one that started this thread (about a missle hitting the Pentagon instead of Flight 77).
Do they believe, like you, that the 9/11 planes were not under human control endgame?
As an example, here's an article quoting a number of Air Force and military people on ths subject:
http://100777.com/doc/249 [/B]
Not this again. We've talked about this book and Col. DeGrand before, haven't we? Still using this crap as evidence?
I'm going to repost my answer to this one from August of last year in
this thread:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric5273 said:
Okay, I did, and now I'll respond:
September 11 - US Government accused
A Portugal-based investigative journalist has presented THE NEWS with version of the September 11th attacks that has to date failed to attract the attention of the international press. The report, compiled by an independent inquiry into the September 11th, World Trade Centre attack, warns the American public that the government’s official version of events does not stand up to scrutiny.
Hmm.....I wonder why such a groundbreaking and revealing story never caught the attention of the mainstream press? Read on, and we shall see.
A group of military and civilian US pilots, under the chairmanship of Colonel Donn de Grand, after deliberating non-stop for 72 hours, has concluded that the flight crews of the four passenger airliners, involved in the September 11th tragedy, had no control over their aircraft.
Ha ha ha! I wonder what the good Col. De Grand has to gain from this.......
http://www.catholictreasures.com/cartdescrip/11111.html
For a mere 28 bucks, you can read it all in his book!
A side note: I would like to know who the "military and civilian US pilots" are that somehow came to this conclusion. I smell something fishy here.
In a detailed press communiqué the inquiry stated: “The so-called terrorist attack was in fact a superbly executed military operation carried out against the USA, requiring the utmost professional military skill in command, communications and control. It was flawless in timing, in the choice of selected aircraft to be used as guided missiles and in the coordinated delivery of those missiles to their pre-selected targets.”
Command, communications, and control? I see no reason for communications at all in the execution phase of the 9/11 attacks. The cells were given their marching orders, and out the door they went. It wasn't flawless in timing, as evidenced by Flight 93 which crashed in Pennsylvania.
The report seriously questions whether or not the suspect hijackers, supposedly trained on Cessna light aircraft, could have located a target dead-on 200 miles from take off point. It further throws into doubt their ability to master the intricacies of the instrument flight rules (IFR) in the 45 minutes from take off to the point of impact.
Their knowlege of Instrument Flight Rules were this: turn off the transponder, and turn the plane to point east. That's all they needed to know until they picked up visual references to guide them in to their targets. No instrument flight training or knowledge over this was necessary.
The pilots supposedly practiced quite a bit on computer-based flight simulators, and some had previously visited the sites and took video of them. Get a copy of MS Flight Sim 2000 Pro and you'll see how easy it would be to practice such a horrible act from the comfort of your own home.
Colonel de Grand said that it would be impossible for novices to have taken control of the four aircraft and orchestrated such a terrible act requiring military precision of the highest order.
They trained in commercial airline simulators, and were only interested in learning how to fly the planes and not take off or land. Besides, beyond learning a few small things, the basic aircraft control of all flying machines big and small is about the same.
A member of the inquiry team, a US Air Force officer who flew over 100 sorties during the Vietnam war, told the press conference: “Those birds (commercial airliners) either had a crack fighter pilot in the left seat, or they were being manoeuvred by remote control.”
There are plenty of civilian and military pilots throughout the USA who would vehemently disagree with this statement. Piloting an aircraft takes skill, but to "stick and rudder" any aircraft doesn't require much training. Also, watch the 2nd aircraft hit the World Trade Center. The hijacker clearly wasn't taking the winds into consideration, and he had to bank the aircraft up and pull a significant amount of g's just to line the plane up at the last minute. A remote-controlled inertial system would have compensated for this, as would any competent aviator.
In evidence given to the enquiry, Captain Kent Hill (retd.) of the US Air Force, and friend of Chic Burlingame, the pilot of the plane that crashed into the Pentagon, stated that the US had on several occasions flown an unmanned aircraft, similar in size to a Boeing 737, across the Pacific from Edwards Air Force base in California to South Australia. According to Hill it had flown on a pre programmed flight path under the control of a pilot in an outside station.
The USAF flies remote-controlled aircraft every day of the week. That does not mean diddly squat when it comes to civilian airliner operations.
Once again, I'll ask these questions in hopes that someone out there can answer them for me: How are you going to get remote-controlled technology on board a commercial airliner without (1) it being noticed by the FAA and the airline, (2) it being noticed by the maintenance folks and the FAA inspectors who go over everything with a fine-toothed comb, or (3) the airline pilots themselves (some of them my close friends.) Also, be sure to show me where the FAA has granted any type of flight clearance for remote-controlled technology to be used on any commercial aircraft for the purpose of carrying passengers. And let's not even talk about the fact that any remote-controlled technology would be easily disabled by pulling it's circuit breaker and returning the controls over to the pilot.
Hill also quoted Bob Ayling, former British Airways boss, in an interview given to the London Economist on September 20th, 2001. Ayling admitted that it was now possible to control an aircraft in flight from either the ground or in the air. This was confirmed by expert witnesses at the inquiry who testified that airliners could be controlled by electro-magnetic pulse or radio frequency instrumentation from command and control platforms based either in the air or at ground level.
I've never heard of an aircraft being controllable by EMP. However, there are plenty of R/C clubs out there who can attest to them being able to fly an R/C plane pretty well. Ask them to fly an instrumented 767 into the Pentagon, and that's another story.
All members of the inquiry team agreed that even if guns were held to their heads none of them would fly a plane into a building. Their reaction would be to ditch the plane into a river or a field, thereby safeguarding the lives of those on the ground.
Okay, if a hijacker bursts into the cabin and says "I am hijacking this plane. We are in control." then prior to 9/11 the pilot has bee instructed to comply with all demands to avoid civilian losses on the aircraft. I'll bet that the pilots never knew the terrorists' intentions before they had their throats cut.
A further question raised by the inquiry was why none of the pilots concerned had alerted ground control. It stated that all pilots are trained to punch a four-digit code into the flight control’s transponder to warn ground control crews of a hijacking - but this did not happen.
The hijackers clearly knew how to operate a transponder, since the hijacked aircrafts' transponders were turned off after they were taken over. So, it seems conceivable that they instructed the pilots not to touch the transponder or they would face the consequences. Also, it's pretty hard to dial 7500 into a transponder.....it's not like there is a red button under the dashboard or anything.
During the press conference Captain Hill maintained that the four airliners must have been choreographed by an Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS). This system can engage several aircraft simultaneously by knocking out their on-board flight controls.
No it can't! This is an outright lie. AWACS has no such capability. If you have ever been on board of an AWACS, it would boggle your mind how jam packed that planes is already. Where do you suppose all of that remote-controlled equipment goes? Jeez.
He said that all the evidence points to the fact that the pilots and their crews had not taken any evasive action to resist the supposed hijackers. They had not attempted any sudden changes in flight path or nose-dive procedures - which led him to believe that they had no control over their aircraft.
The pilots didn't take any evasive action, (1) because they had been trained not to, and (2) because they were killed rather quickly after the hijackings occurred. Nose-dive/evasive action procedures were not a part of any hijacking training prior to 9/11.
THE NEWS, in an attempt to further substantiate the potential veracity of these findings, spoke to an Algarve-based airline pilot, who has more than 20 years of experience in flying passenger planes, to seek his views. Captain Colin McHattie, currently flying with Cathay Pacific, agreed with the independent commission’s findings. However, he explained that while it is possible to fly a plane from the ground, the installation of the necessary equipment is a time-consuming process, and needs extensive planning. THE NEWS will publish a full interview with Captain McHattie in next week’s edition.
Does he also know about the FAA certification processes, and the questions I rasied above? Hell, I'll go on record and say it's possible, too, as long as everyone knows about it and it goes through all of the proper certifications and inspections. The allegations are that this was all done covertly, which opens it up for the criticisms that I gave above.
If you read Colin's interview in the following edition, he disagrees with the notion that 9/11 aircraft were remote-controlled. So much for their expert witness!
Colonel Donn de Grand said that if President Bush is lying it would not be the first time that the American people had been mislead by its government. He cited the recently published official government archives describing President Roosevelt’s duplicity in deceiving Americans about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour, which triggered the US entry into WWll.
Hmm.....didn't I just see this somewhere else?
He also highlighted the role of the country’s government in misleading its citizens in respect of the Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba, and the events that brought about the Spanish American war in the late 19th, century. “Whilst considering who committed this act of war on September 11th,” he said, “albeit Russia, China, an Islamic country or NATO, we must also consider that the enemy may well be within the gates.
Read all about it in my book! Get 'em while they're hot! (Only 28 bucks plus shipping and handling)
So far the mainstream American news media has failed to publish or broadcast any details regarding the independent inquiry. Similarly, the White House, whilst having received a copy of the report, has remained silent on its findings.
Gee, I really wonder why no mainstream American news media has published info on this "independent inquiry." Gee, could it be that it is full of lies and bogus information, and potentially profit-motivated? Naah.
