Wednesday, August 30, 2006

A report...

The report seriously questions whether or not the suspect hijackers, supposedly trained on Cessna light aircraft, could have located a target dead-on 200 miles from take off point. It further throws into doubt their ability to master the intricacies of the instrument flight rules (IFR) in the 45 minutes from take off to the point of impact. Colonel de Grand said that it would be impossible for novices to have taken control of the four aircraft and orchestrated such a terrible act requiring military precision of the highest order.

A member of the inquiry team, a US Air Force officer who flew over 100 sorties during the Vietnam war, told the press conference: “Those birds (commercial airliners) either had a crack fighter pilot in the left seat, or they were being manoeuvred by remote control.” STORY

Further pilot comments: "I seriously question whether these novices could have located a target dead-on 200 miles removed from takeoff point...-- much less controlled the flight and mastered the intricacies of 11FR (instrument flight rules) -- and all accomplished in 45 minutes."

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

"The fact is, all the transponders were turned off on the doomed flights virtually at the same time." Look at their departure times -- two from Logan (Boston), one from Newark, another from Dulles (Washington DC) -- all between 8 am and 8:15."

"We were totally trained on the old type of hijack where you treat the hijacker cordially, punch a 4-digit code into your transponder to alert ground control you're being hijacked, and then get him where he wants to go, set the plane safely on the ground and let them deal with it on the ground. However, this is a totally new situation... Not one of the planes alerted ground control that they were being hijacked." Why?

"I became more convinced that the four commercial jets were choreographed by a "conductor" from a central source, namely an airborne warning and control system (AWACS). They have the electronic capability to engage several aircraft simultaneously, knock out their on-board flight controls by EMP (electro-magnetic pulsing) and assume command and remote control of these targeted aircraft"



4 comments:

betmo said...

i think that there are many questions unanswered- but that the answers won't come here in america. there are too many folks who still won't or don't question american government. the mindset that our government is this benign entity looking out for our best interests is infuriating to me to say the least. i think that this is plausible but would be labelled a conspiracy theorist. hopefully, this won't be buried under the repub rhetoric to die.

QUASAR9 said...

Betmo,
on civilian aircraft the pilot has to manually set autopilot when they come in to land at airports.
US Military aircraft are sold with computer override systems, so they cannot be used against US military personnel abroad or at home (homeland).
It is not just that you need a skilled fighter pilot or fly-by-wire (remote control) to fly a plane 20 feet off the ground at 540mph into the Pentagon. It is that it would be difficult to do so for anything with wings - or a commercial (civilian) plane. The one thing which could have made that flight without air turbulence causing it to cartwheel, and go straight through three reinforced concrete sections of the Pentagon would be a guided missile.

betmo said...

take a peek at bushmerika2's recent post at my place.

Helicon said...

So now, who really is Colonel de Grand? In this case it also helps to dig just a little deeper

Is there anyone out here who's able to find an 'expert' on 911 who is both a 'truther' AND sane?