投稿者 佐藤雅彦 日時 2001 年 10 月 11 日 23:17:52:
●９・１１米国事変の直後に、米国の陰謀系のMLで、NYツイン
タワーやペンタゴンに突っ込んだ旅客機は「全自動操縦」されて
いたのではないか、という疑問が出されました。
つまり、あの飛行機はそもそも「ハイジャック」によって「テロ
リスト」に乗っ取られたあげくに“カミカゼ特攻”を遂げたのでは
なく、事変発生直後から喧伝されだした「ウサマ（中略）ビン・ラデ
ィン」などとは無関係の陰謀によって仕掛けられた“芝居”だった
のではないか、という可能性です。
これは、私には荒唐無稽に思えました。その後MLで飛び交った
情報も、だからほとんど無視していたのですが、本日、無視でき
ない情報が飛び込んできたので、それを紹介します。
「９・１１カミカゼ作戦に“特攻パイロット”は乗っていなかった？！」
（Operation 911: NO SUICIDE PILOTS）というのが、その記事の
題名で、これを発表したのは「Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum」
のキャロル・ヴァレンタイン氏。この博物館は、1993年にテキサス州
ウェイコウ（Waco：テキサス州中部フォートワースの南方, ブラゾス
川沿岸の人口10万の都市、ベイラー大学の所在地）で1993年で起
きた政府による教団虐殺事件――いわゆる「ブランチ・ダヴィディアン
事件」――を忘れないために、政府の暴虐についての資料を収集・
発表しています。
【いわゆる「ウサマ・ビンラディン」の表記ですが、英文では「Osama
Bin Laden」となっています。 そこで私は当初、この英文表記に
忠実に「オサマ・ビン・ラーデン」と書いていましたが、あらためて
アラビア語を調べたところ、ローマ字の「o」は「オ」と「ウ」の真ん中
あたりの音で、「e」は「エ」と「イ」の真ん中あたりの音だそうです。
つまり「ウサマ・ビン・ラディン」という音訳表記が正しいようです。
但し、その本名は「ウサマ・ビン・ムハンマド・ビン・アワド・ビン・
ラディン」と言うそうで、「ビン」は「～の息子」という意味。つまり
「（曾祖父）ラディンの息子の、（祖父）アワドの息子の、（父）アワド
の息子の、ウサマ」というのが彼の名前なのだそうです。それゆえ
「ウサマ・ビン・ラディン」と記せば、「ラディン一族のウサマ」という
意味になってしまうわけ。 これは非常に大雑把な、不正確な呼
び名なので、とりあえず私は「ウサマ（中略）ビン・ラディン」と
記すことにします。】
●さて、ヴァレンタイン氏の記事を見てまず仰天したのは、まさに
あの“事変”の前日――９月10日――に、なんと統一教会のプロパ
ガンダ装置である『ワシントン・タイムズ』の一面に、「米国が新生
パレスチナ国家の樹立を認めてイスラエルとパレスチナ国家の双
方にPKFを送れば、イスラエル正規軍はともかくとして、モサドが
“パレスチナやアラブの仕業と見せかけて”米軍攻撃を行なう可能
性がある」という、米軍の先進軍事研究学校による予測を書きたて
ていたことでした。
その件りだけ抜粋しますと――
-----------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
【アメリカ陸軍・先進軍事研究学校（SAMS）は、イスラエルならそれ
（自動操縦旅客機による米国内施設への“カミカゼ特攻”）を確実に
実行できる能力がある、と見ている。2001年９月10日にワシントン・
タイムズ紙が１面にこんな記事を載せた――「イスラエルの諜報機関
モサドついて、SAMSの将官はこう語る。“この連中の行動は予見不能
だ。やることが冷酷でずるがしこい。米軍部隊を襲って、それをパレスチナやアラブの仕業に見せかけるだけの能力がある。”】
-----------------------------------------------------------
この記事の全文↓
［引用記事中の各段落冒頭の丸カッコ数字は、引用者による。］
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:GnRmHPNL-1U:www.washtimes.com/national/20010910-68476943.htm+washington+times+sams+mossad&hl=ja
September 10, 2001
U.S. troops would enforce peace under Army study
By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
(1)An elite U.S. Army study center has devised a plan for enforcing a major Israeli-Palestinian peace accord that would require about 20,000 well-armed troops stationed throughout Israel and a newly created Palestinian state.
【アメリカ陸軍えり抜きの研究センターが、イスラエルとパレスチナ
の和平合意を実施するための計画を策定してきたが、それによれば
十分に武装した２万人の兵員をイスラエルと新生パレスチナ国家の
全域に貼り付けておく必要があるという。】
(2)There are no plans by the Bush administration to put American soldiers into the Middle East to police an agreement forged by the longtime warring parties. In fact, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is searching for ways to reduce U.S. peacekeeping efforts abroad, rather than increasing such missions.
(3)But a 68-page paper by the Army School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS) does provide a look at the daunting task any international peacekeeping force would face if the United Nations authorized it, and Israel and the Palestinians ever reached a peace agreement.
(4)Located at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., the School for Advanced Military Studies is both a training ground and a think tank for some of the Army's brightest officers. Officials say the Army chief of staff, and sometimes the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ask SAMS to develop contingency plans for future military operations. During the 1991 Persian Gulf war, SAMS personnel helped plan the coalition ground attack that avoided a strike up the middle of Iraqi positions and instead executed a "left hook" that routed the enemy in 100 hours.
(5)The cover page for the recent SAMS project said it was done for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. But Maj. Chris Garver, a Fort Leavenworth spokesman, said the study was not requested by Washington.
(6)"This was just an academic exercise," said Maj. Garver. "They were trying to take a current situation and get some training out of it."
(7)The exercise was done by 60 officers dubbed "Jedi Knights," as all second-year SAMS students are nicknamed.
(8)The SAMS paper attempts to predict events in the first year of a peace-enforcement operation, and sees possible dangers for U.S. troops from both sides.
【このSAMS報告書は、イスラエルとの和平合意のもとで「新生
パレスチナ国家」が誕生したのちの“最初の１年”に、平和実施作戦
遂行の過程で何が起きるかを予測し、両地域に駐留する米軍が
どんな危険に直面するかを考察している。】
(9)It calls Israel's armed forces a "500-pound gorilla in Israel. Well armed and trained. Operates in both Gaza . Known to disregard international law to accomplish mission. Very unlikely to fire on American forces. Fratricide a concern especially in air space management."
【この報告書はイスラエル軍を「イスラエルに生息する５００ポンド
級のゴリラ」と呼んでいるが、この“ゴリラ”は「十分な装備と訓練を
受けていて、ガザ地区の両側で作戦行動を行なう。任務のために
国際法を踏みにじる習性があるのは既知の事実だが、米軍に
じかに砲火を浴びせることはきわめて考えにくい。ただし米軍機
を撃ち落とす危険性はとりわけて高い。】
(10)Of the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, the SAMS officers say: "Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act."
【イスラエルの諜報機関モサドについて、SAMSの将官はこう語る
――「この連中の行動は予見不能だ。やることが冷酷でずるがしこい。
米軍部隊を襲って、それをパレスチナやアラブの仕業に見せかける
だけの能力がある。】
(11)On the Palestinian side, the paper describes their youth as "loose cannons; under no control, sometimes violent." The study lists five Arab terrorist groups that could target American troops for assassination and hostage-taking.
【パレスチナ側については、この報告書は、かの地域の若者を
「どこに飛ぶか分からない大砲のようなもので、制御不能で
ときには暴発する」と表現している。この報告書には、暗殺攻撃や
人質の誘拐によって米軍を襲う恐れがあるアラブのテロ集団が
５つ列挙されている。】
(12)The study recommends "neutrality in word and deed" as one way to protect U.S. soldiers from any attack. It also says Syria, Egypt and Jordan must be warned "we will act decisively in response to external attack."
(13)It is unlikely either of the three would mount an attack. Of Syria's military, the report says: "Syrian army quantitatively larger than Israeli Defense Forces, but largely seen as qualitatively inferior. More likely, however, Syrians would provide financial and political support to the Palestinians, as well as increase covert support to terrorism acts through Lebanon."
(14)Of Egypt's military, the paper says, "Egyptians also maintain a large army but have little to gain by attacking Israel."
(15)The plan does not specify a full order of battle. An Army source who reviewed the SAMS work said each of a possible three brigades would require about 100 Bradley fighting vehicles, 25 tanks, 12 self-propelled howitzers, Apache attack helicopters, Kiowa Warrior reconnaissance helicopters and Predator spy drones.
(16)The report predicts that nonlethal weapons would be used to quell unrest.
(17)U.S. European Command, which is headed by NATO's supreme allied commander, would oversee the peacekeeping operation. Commanders would maintain areas of operation, or AOs, around Nablus, Jerusalem, Hebron and the Gaza strip.
(18)The study sets out a list of goals for U.S. troops to accomplish in the first 30 days. They include: "create conditions for development of Palestinian State and security of "; ensure "equal distribution of contract value or equivalent aid" that would help legitimize the peacekeeping force and stimulate economic growth; "promote U.S. investment in Palestine"; "encourage reconciliation between entities based on acceptance of new national identities"; and "build lasting relationship based on new legal borders and not religious-territorial claims."
(19)Maj. Garver said the officers who completed the exercise will hold major planning jobs once they graduate. "There is an application process" for students, he said. "They screen their records, and there are several tests they go through before they are accepted by the program. The bright planners of the future come out of this program."
(20)James Phillips, a Middle East analyst at the Heritage Foundation, said it would be a mistake to put peacekeepers in Israel, given the "poor record of previous monitors."
(21)"In general, the Bush administration policy is to discourage a large American presence," he said. "But it has been rumored that one of the possibilities might be an expanded CIA role."
(22)"It would be a very different environment than Bosnia," said Mr. Phillips, referring to America's six-year peacekeeping role in Bosnia-Herzegovina. "The Palestinian Authority is pushing for this as part of its strategy to internationalize the conflict. Bring in the Europeans and Russia and China. But such monitors or peacekeeping forces are not going to be able to bring peace. Only a decision by the Palestinians to stop the violence and restart talks could possibly do that."
-----------------------------------------------------------
●米国事変がおきたのは、2000年９月に建国を予定していた新生
パレスチナが、米国の“妨害”によって流産したほぼ１周忌の時期
でした。パキスタンやインドの政府首脳の名前さえ知らなかった
劣等生の外交音痴・小ブッシュは、大統領になってから米国の責任
遂行を放棄して、イスラエルによるパレスチナ侵略のエスカレーション
を黙認してきましたが、やがては新生パレスチナ国家の樹立を認めて
イスラエルにも米軍を駐留させ、妨害行為を阻止せざるを得なくなる、
というのが規定の（つまり最終的には回避できない）方針だったと
言えるでしょう。
●統一教会の宣伝紙がどういう思惑で「中東和平に米軍PKFが
乗り出せばモサドの“テロ偽装攻撃”を受ける」云々という記事を
１面に大きく載せたのか、私にはわかりませんが、とにかくその
翌日の朝に、「パレスチナやアラブ筋の犯行」に見える「テロ事件」
が起きたわけで、絶妙のタイミングだったと言えましょう。
●米軍が「グローバル・ホーク」という、ボーイング７３７なみの大
きさの全自動（ロボット化）軍用ジェット機をすでに保有している
そうです。そうした“飛び道具”を使って、国家レベルの陰謀芝居
が打たれた可能性も……あくまでも可能性ですが……考慮に
入れておく必要があるのかも知れません。
■■■■@■■■.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
【９・１１カミカゼ作戦に「特攻パイロット」は乗っていなかった？！】
-----------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: Carol A. Valentine
To:
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 11:01 AM
Subject: Operation 911: NO SUICIDE PILOTS
> Operation 911: NO SUICIDE PILOTS
>
> by Carol A. Valentine
> Curator, Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum
> http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum
>
> October 5, 2001--There were no "suicide" hijackers aboard those jets
> on September 11. Advanced robotics technology, not the hijackers,
> was controlling the jets when they crashed. Fantastic? Before I
> explain, read about the history-making robot jet plane.
>
> Global Hawk--Here 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/20020424/world/05robotplane.shtm
>
> ...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 (kettererkey@home.com) on alt.current-events.wtc
explosion).
>
> So, even though the ITN article was published on April 24, in
> September, after the 911 crashes, Mr. Ayling is pretending Global
> Hawk technology is a thing of the future.
>
> I looked for the ITN article on the Global Hawk after I read Mr.
> Ayling's comments. The article had been removed from the ITN
> website.
>
> 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.
>
> http://ennes.org/jim/ussliberty/
>
> When four US fighter jets from a nearby aircraft carrier came to
> protect the Liberty, US Defense Secretary Robert McNamara ordered the
> jets NOT to come to the Liberty's aid, and allowed the Israeli attack
> to continue. Thirty-four Americans were killed and 171 wounded.
>
> http://ennes.org/jim/ussliberty/chapter6.htm
>
> 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," and
>
> * Development of a terror campaign in the Miami and Washington, DC.
>
> 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, 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 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 [Maryland]
> Journal 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 .S 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 an 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 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.
>
> "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 for 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 they 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 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 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' rom 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. Therefore, the
> "hijackers had a bomb" story was necessary. For example:
>
> http://www.msnbc.com/news/632626.asp
>
> Missing Air Traffic Control Conversations
>
> According to a 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
>
> 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 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.
> 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://www.itn.co.uk/news/20010424/world/05robotplane.shtm
> (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, 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
>
投稿コメント全ログ
コメント即時配信
スレ建て依頼
削除コメント確認方法
題名には必ず「阿修羅さんへ」と記述してください。
掲示板,ＭＬを含むこのサイトすべての
一切の引用、転載、リンクを許可いたします。確認メールは不要です。
引用元リンクを表示してください。