 KILLER ROBOT JETPLANES! |
|
KILLER ROBOT JETPLANES! |
 PIRATE NEWS TV News cache edited by John Lee by Pirate News as seen on History Channel   Video: Pods on Remote Control Airliners on 9/11Pilotless passenger jet flown remotely by RAF in world first Equipment and Logistics A glimpse into the future of how the RAF might attack a number of air and ground targets with multiple unmanned aircraft, but with a single pilot in charge, has been demonstrated over the West Country. A passenger jet simulating a pilotless combat aircraft was flown from RAF Boscombe Down to an area of the Bristol Channel target area by its normal crew – who then "handed over" control to the pilot of a nearby RAF Tornado fighter via data links from his cockpit. Once at operating height the crew of the passenger jet - a standard BAC 1-11 but with seats replaced by three autonomous sets of hi-tech Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle simulators - relaxed as the Tornado pilot took over the controls and instructed the commercial jet and its three virtual equivalents to proceed towards the targets. The BAC 1-11 is a technology demonstrator - or surrogate UAV - providing a platform to test the operation of an unmanned aircraft from the cockpit of a single frontline jet. The system was developed by QinetiQ, formerly the Government's Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, with funding from the MOD’s Research Acquisition Organisation (part of science / innovation / technology). While only one aircraft was physically being flown, it had banks of duplicated equipment to mimic three further UAVs, all of which were successfully flown onto targets during the demonstration. The crew of the BAC 1-11 was retained for safety, but once cleared after the take-off the aircraft was handed over to the control of Tornado pilot Squadron Leader Andy Blythe, of RAF Boscombe Down's Fast Jet Test Squadron, who was flying close by.
The Tornado and four UAVs carried out simulated ground attacks on moving targets driving autonomously across Exmoor. The sophisticated computer on the UAVs allowed them to communicate and sense their environment, including locating possible enemies and target their weapons themselves. The final decision whether to fire was retained by the Tornado pilot.
Squadron Leader Andy Blythe said: "The trial was a complete success. The BAC 1-11 took off first and and I caught up with it 30 minutes later. I took over and operated the jet at between 14,000 and 20,000ft. I found the UAVs easy to control. First I directed them to do a sweep over the battlefield to identify vehicles and send back their images to me in the cockpit. Once I had classified the targets in order of priority, and got the UAVs to make a second sweep to check for friendlies, I gave consent for the UAVs to destroy the targets, which they did and then made a final sweep for battle damage assessment." The Tornado - an F2 air defence variant – is known as TIARA (Tornado Integrated Avionics Research Aircraft). In customising the aircraft for UAV trials, standard cockpit instrumentation was replaced by a number of interactive moving map screens to allow operation of the notional pilotless aircraft. The advantages of the demonstrator aircraft include not being confined to segregated test ranges and enabling software refinements to take place in the air as they are needed, rather than having a dedicated facility on the ground. Central to the project is the reduction of workload on the pilot. Squadron Leader Rich Wells, of MOD's Defence Equipment Capability (DEC) Deep Target Attack branch, explained: "The RAF is keen to explore the potential of extending the capability of our fast jet aircraft through the use of multiple supporting UAVs. The latest achievement by QinetiQ represents a significant advance to this end. "The use of UAVs has the potential to deliver a wide range of benefits both for the management of air battle space, force multiplication and safety. In particular it can perform missions that are dangerous, dirty or dull that are currently carried out by manned aircraft. "UAVs provide air forces with increased capability, greater flexibility and agility. But the human control will always be pivotal and ever-present. The image of a 'Terminator' with a mind of its own will never happen. UAVs can be controlled from the ground, but directing a number of UAVs from a manned aircraft close to the battle space could offer significant military advantages." QinetiQ's Air Division Managing Director, Tony Wall, added: "We are delighted with the success achieved at Boscombe Down – it represents an important step in proving that complex autonomy technologies are ready to move from a simulated world to realistic flight conditions. A system that allows a single pilot to fly his or her own aircraft while simultaneously controlling a package of UAVs is a true world first. We hope it will be coming into service around 2020, possibly on Typhoon." The latest trials will feed into two further UAV areas - Project TARANIS, an MOD initiative to develop an autonomous full size unmanned combat aircraft which should fly by 2010, and a system for commercial applications that can assist in areas such as search and rescue, disaster relief and environmental monitoring. AIR COMMAND AND STAFF COLLEGE, AIR UNIVERSITY by Kenneth E. Thompson, Major, USAF by Major Daniel R. Rocha, USAF Air Force Times, August 28, 2006 Air Force Times, February 16, 2004 Air Force Times, May 24, 2007 Air Force Times, May 10, 2007 Creech Air Force Base, Nev Air Force Times, April 27, 2007 Air Force Times, April 24, 2007 Air Force Times, April 13, 2007
|
"Allow Boeing.com to access your camera and microphone?" "The USAF is currently researching other combat mission ideas for UAVs, including suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD) at a "battlelab" in Eglin AFB, Florida. The USAF can quickly provide a cost-effective unmanned military option by modifying some F-16C fighters into dual-role UCAVs. The multirole F-16 is a combat-proven air-to-air and air-to-ground fighter platform that can perform all airpower missions with its capability to carry almost all of the USAF bomb and missile inventory. Slightly modifying an F-16C for unmanned flight while maintaining its manned flight capability gives the USAF most of the advantages of UCAV operations and reduces or eliminates many unmanned flight concerns. A remotely piloted, dual-role F-16C UCAV can quickly provide a politically safe, cost-effective, and flexible unmanned military option for US leadership. An important prerequisite for this F-16 UCAV idea is proving that the United States now needs an alternative to cruise missiles. Therefore, this article presents arguments on why US leadership quickly needs an interim UCAV option before exploring the F-16C UCAV proposal. The objectives of this article are to (1) provide some UCAV background to the reader with the advantages and concerns related to unmanned flight, (2) explain why the United States needs an interim UCAV military option, and (3) recommend the dual-role F-16C UCAV. Prompted by the USAF Scientific Advisory Board's recommendations in New World Vistas, DARPA research grants, and UCAV interest in the Air Force 2025 project, several US aerospace companies including Teledyne Ryan, Boeing, Northrop, and Lockheed Martin have started preliminary designs on advanced-technology UCAVs. Both Great Britain and Germany are also studying a UCAV replacement for their air-to-ground Tornado. Interestingly, the development and research phase of the Joint Strike Fighter now has four versions: USAF, USN, US Marine Corps, and a UCAV. Dr. Gene McCall, USAF chief scientist, predicts that the last JSFs to roll off the factory line will be UCAVs." "Aerospace giant Boeing has decided that it needs to give serious thought to cutting pilots out of the cockpit. The company has established a new organisation dedicated to efforts in the expanding 'unmanned systems' market and aimed at fast-tracking the development of pilotless aircraft. At one time, the US military said it had no desire to allow unmanned aircraft to carry lethal payloads. However, following tests last year with Predator UAV's firing Hellfire anti-tank missiles, and the subsequent deployment and success of the pairing in killing tanks in Afghanistan, the Pentagon has warmed rapidly to the idea. The Boeing group will look at the feasibility of cheap, expendable UAV's that could be sent on suicidal missions. Based in St.Louis, the new Unmanned Systems group will be headed up by Mike Heinz and report to both Jerry Daniels, president and chief executive officer of Boeing Military Aircraft and Missile Systems, and George Muellner, president, Boeing Phantom Works, the company's advanced research-and-development unit. 'Unmanned systems are the future of aerospace,' Daniels said."
"On land, our heavy forces will be lighter, our light forces will be more lethal. All will be easier to deploy and to sustain. In the air, we will be able to strike across the world with pinpoint accuracy, using both aircraft and unmanned systems. On the oceans, we will connect information and weapons in new ways, maximizing our ability to project power over land. In space, we'll protect our network of satellites essential to the flow of our commerce and the defense of our common interests." "A secret blueprint for U.S. global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure regime change even before he took power in January 2001." "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." "That's why I got rid of my television. It was like having an insane relative sitting in the corner, jabbering to himself 24 hours a day." "There is a chance for the President of the United States to use the disaster to carry out what his father - a phrase his father used I think only once, and it hasn't been used since - and that is a New World Order." "A president of the United States has just assumed what amounts to dictatorial power." "Technological progress has merely provided us with more efficient means of going backwards. The greatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished, not by doing something, but by refraining from doing. Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth. If you are going to control any population for any length of time, you must have some measure of consent. Pure terrorism can function for a fairly long time, but sooner or later you have to bring in an element of pursuasion. You have to get people to love their servitude. Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad." |
"Why should we hear about body bags and deaths and how many, what day it's gonna happen? It's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?" "And don't criticize my children and don't criticize my daughters-in-law and don't criticize my husband, or you're dead!" "Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, launched a stinging attack on President George Bush last night, denouncing him as the 'greatest threat to life on this planet that we've most probably ever seen'." "There are no innocent civilians, so it doesn't bother me so much to be killing innocent bystanders." "The Pentagon—a building, institution, and symbol—was conceived at the request of Brigadier General Brehon B. Sommervell, Chief of the Construction Division of the Office of the Quartermaster General, on a weekend in mid-July 1941. The purpose was to provide a temporary solution to the War Department's critical shortage of space.The groundbreaking ceremony took place on September 11, 1941. The building was dedicated on January 15, 1943, nearly 16 months to the day after the groundbreaking. Construction began 11 September 1941." |
|
|
"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence-economic, political, even spiritual-is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the Federal government. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
"The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] announced today that the Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV) program has successfully completed all ground and flight objectives for the first phase of demonstrations and is ready to begin the second phase of flight demonstrations, focused on more advanced, multi-vehicle operations. As a joint effort of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the U.S. Air Force and the Boeing Phantom Works, the UCAV program consists of two X-45A air vehicles, a mission control system and various supportability elements. Its objective is to demonstrate the technical feasibility of a UCAV system to effectively and affordably perform suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD) and strike missions. In the first phase of demonstrations, known as Block 1, 48 discrete laboratory, simulation and flight demonstrations were conducted, primarily focused on initial systems checkout, including a total of 16 flights for the two air vehicles. The final demonstration flight occurred on Feb. 28, which verified safe operation of the weapons bay door at 35,000 ft. and speeds up to 0.75 Mach, the maximum planned altitude and speed for the X-45A demonstrator vehicles. Col. Earl Wyatt (U.S. Air Force), the UCAV Program Manager for DARPA said he was "extremely proud" of the joint team. Key Block 1 demonstrations included:
"You will be happy to learn that the former head of the KGB (the secret police of the former Soviet Union), General Yevgeni Primakov, has been hired as a consultant by the US Department of Homeland Security [Pentagon's Office of Information Awareness at DARPA.MIL]." "Government control of Communications and Transportation." "Operation NORTHWOODS may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government. Operation NORTHWOODS had called for nothing less than the launch of a secret campaign of terrorism within the United States in order to blame Castro and provoke a war with Cuba."
"We could blow up a drone (unmannded) vessel anywhere in the Cuban waters. The presense of Cuban planes or ships merely investigating the intent of the vessel could be fairly compelling evidence that the ship was taken under attack. The US could follow with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US fighters to "evacuate" remaining members of the non-existant crew. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation. We could develop a Communist Cuba terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Flordia cities and even in Washington. The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cubans in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized. Exploding a few bombs in carefully chosen spots. The arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating cuban involvement. Use of MIG-type aircraft by US pilots could provide additional provocation. Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping, and destruction of US military drone aircraft by MIG type planes would be useful. An F-86 properly painted would convince air passengers that they saw a Cuban MIG, especially if the pilot of the transport were to announce that fact. Hijacking attampts against US civil air and surface craft should be encouraged. It is possible to create an incident which would demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civilian airliner from the United States. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be subsituted for the actual civil aircraft and the passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rondevous. From the rondevous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly to an auxiliary airfield at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. Meanwhile the drone aircraft will continue to fly the filed flight plan. The drone will be transmitting on the international distress frequency "MAY DAY" message stating it is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by the destruction of aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow IACO radio stations to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to "sell" the incident. It is possible to create an incident that will make it appear that Communist Cuban MIGs have destroyed a USAF aircraft over international waters in an unprovoked attack. On one such flight, a pre-briefed pilot would fly Tail-end Charlie. While near the Cuban island this pilot would broadcast that he had been jumped by MIGs and was going down. This pilot would then fly at extremely low altitude and land at a secure base, an Eglin auxiliary. The aircraft would be met by the proper people, quickly stored and given a new tail number. The pilot who performed the mission under an alias would resume his proper identity. The pilot and aircraft would then have disappeared. A submarine or small craft would distribute F-101 parts, parachute, etc. The pilots retuning to Homestead would have a true story as far as they knew. Search ships and aircraft could be dispatched and parts of aircraft found.
It is understood that the Department of State is also preparing suggested courses of action to develope justification for US military intervention in Cuba." |
|
|
"It was like a cruise missile with wings, went right there and slammed into the Pentagon," Mike Walter, an eyewitness, told CNN. "Huge explosion, great ball of fire, smoke started billowing out, and then it was just chaos on the highway as people either tried to move around the traffic and go down either forward or backwards." "A respected philosopher of religion at the Claremont School of Theology since the 1970s and longtime Santa Barbara resident, Griffin is now raising questions that even President Bush's harshest critics are afraid to think, let alone ask aloud. In his latest book, The New Pearl Harbor — released just two weeks ago — Griffin all but accuses the Bush administration of taking a dive on September 11 and giving Al Qaeda terrorists an unobstructed shot at the World Trade Center. According to Griffin, a case can be made that the Bush administration arranged the attack, or allowed it to happen. "It's easy to imagine an infinite number of situations where the government might legitimately give out false information. It's an unfortunate reality that the issuance of incomplete information and even misinformation by government may sometimes be perceived as necessary to protect vital interests." "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." "To counter psychological warfare, the Internet and talk radio are
weapons of mass instruction." Official Testimony by Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta 9-11 Commission self-appointed by Bush Jr. White House National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States The Bush Administration claims the terrorists were successful because the U.S. had faulty intelligence, bad luck, and bureaucratic ineptitude, but that isn't true. Vice President Dick Cheney monitored the flight path of Flight 77, the commercial airliner that crashed into the Pentagon. Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta was in the Presidential Emergency Operating Center with Vice President Cheney as American Airlines Flight 77 approached Washington, D.C. Secretary Norman Mineta testified to the 911 Commission on May 23, 2003:
Mariani v. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al. - White House sued by 9-11 victims' families for terrorism, racketeering and organized crime for perping the 9-11 massacres. Irate families demand immediate arrest of president and staff for mass murder, terrorism and treason
|
|
NORAD Ran Eerie Plane Drills - Pentagon, WTC among imagined targets NORAD had drills of jets as weapons By Steven Komarow and Tom Squitieri WASHINGTON — In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties. In a third scenario, the target was the Pentagon — but that drill was not run after Defense officials said it was unrealistic, NORAD and Defense officials say. NORAD, in a written statement, confirmed that such hijacking exercises occurred. It said the scenarios outlined were regional drills, not regularly scheduled continent-wide exercises. "Numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft," the statement said. "These exercises tested track detection and identification; scramble and interception; hijack procedures; internal and external agency coordination and operational security and communications security procedures." A White House spokesman said Sunday that the Bush administration was not aware of the NORAD exercises. But the exercises using real aircraft show that at least one part of the government thought the possibility of such attacks, though unlikely, merited scrutiny. On April 8, the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks heard testimony from national security adviser Condoleezza Rice that the White House didn't anticipate hijacked planes being used as weapons. On April 12, a watchdog group, the Project on Government Oversight, released a copy of an e-mail written by a former NORAD official referring to the proposed exercise targeting the Pentagon. The e-mail said the simulation was not held because the Pentagon considered it "too unrealistic." President Bush said at a news conference Tuesday, "Nobody in our government, at least, and I don't think the prior government, could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale." The exercises differed from the Sept. 11 attacks in one important respect: The planes in the simulation were coming from a foreign country. Until Sept. 11, NORAD was expected to defend the United States and Canada from aircraft based elsewhere. After the attacks, that responsibility broadened to include flights that originated in the two countries. But there were exceptions in the early drills, including one operation, planned in July 2001 and conducted later, that involved planes from airports in Utah and Washington state that were "hijacked." Those planes were escorted by U.S. and Canadian aircraft to airfields in British Columbia and Alaska. NORAD officials have acknowledged that "scriptwriters" for the drills included the idea of hijacked aircraft being used as weapons. "Threats of killing hostages or crashing were left to the scriptwriters to invoke creativity and broaden the required response," Maj. Gen. Craig McKinley, a NORAD official, told the 9/11 commission. No exercise matched the specific events of Sept. 11, NORAD said. "We have planned and executed numerous scenarios over the years to include aircraft originating from foreign airports penetrating our sovereign airspace," Gen. Ralph Eberhart, NORAD commander, told USA TODAY. "Regrettably, the tragic events of 9/11 were never anticipated or exercised." NORAD, a U.S.-Canadian command, was created in 1958 to guard against Soviet bombers. Until Sept. 11, 2001, NORAD conducted four major exercises a year. Most included a hijack scenario, but not all of those involved planes as weapons. Since the attacks, NORAD has conducted more than 100 exercises, all with mock hijackings. NORAD fighters based in Florida have intercepted two hijacked smaller aircraft since Sept. 11. Both originated in Cuba and were escorted to Key West in spring 2003, NORAD said.
Jerry Russell Jim Hoffman has discovered a document which I believe may be very important to the 911 skeptic movement. This document superseded earlier DOD procedures for dealing with hijacked aircraft, and it requires that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld is personally responsible for issuing intercept orders. Commanders in the field are stripped of all authority to act. This amazing order came from S.A. Fry (Vice Admiral, US Navy and Director, Joint Staff) so it appears to me that responsibility for the US armed forces "Failure to Respond" rests directly with Fry for issuing this instruction, as well as with Donald Rumsfeld for failing to execute his responsibility to issue orders in a timely fashion. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction CJCSI 3610.01A (dated 1 June 2001) was issued for the purpose of providing "guidance to the Deputy Director for Operations (DDO), National Military Command Center (NMCC), and operational commanders in the event of an aircraft piracy (hijacking) or request for destruction of derelict airborne objects." This new instruction superseded CJCSI 3610.01 of 31 July 1997. This CJCSI states that "In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference d, forward requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval." Reference D refers to Department of Defense Directive 3025.15 (Feb. 18, 1997) which allows for commanders in the field to provide assistance to save lives in an emergency situation -- BUT any requests involving "potentially lethal support" (including "combat and tactical vehicles, vessels or aircraft; or ammunition") must still be approved by the Secretary of Defense. So again, the ability to respond to a hijacking in any meaningful fashion, is stripped from the commanders in the field. While none of this relieves the Bush Administration from ultimate responsibility from 911, nevertheless there is the possibility that this discovery could somewhat diffuse the power of our movement's message about the "Stand Down", since it is now clear that it was implemented through a routine administrative memo. If this comes up as an issue at the Washington 911 cover-up commission, it would be interesting if Fry could testify as to the reasoning behind making it bureaucratically impossible for the DOD to respond to hijackings in a timely fashion. The relevant documents are on the Web at: |
|
Geocities.com/x_files_lone_gunmen_911 Pilot Episode 1AEB79 March 4, 2001 Broadcast Censored GIF Animation file with cockpit view and Yahoo.com website of Pentagon hijacking US airliner by remote control to crash into World Trade Center 6 months prior to terror massacres on 9-11-2001. Too bad Jewish FOX TV didn't report on Pentagon's Operation NORTHWOODS (declassified in 2000) in its "news" broadcasts, with Pentagon's confessed plot to hijack and bomb US airliners by remote control, instead relying on its Jewish X-Files "When Aliens Attack" FBI fiction series to "warn" (or taunt?) America of impending treason by Pentagon and its Jewish masters in the White House and beyond... by John Lee and Pirate News - September 911 Surprise
Reconstituted webpage with links that tell of Lone Gunmen's true-crime ESP:
Conspiracy Theory The Lone Gunmen Posted by MightyPonyGirl.com Cast and Characters
John Byers: Bruce Harwood Episode Summary It's party time at E-Com-Con Corporation in Vienna, Virginia. As people filter in, the camera pans up to the rooftop, where two figures are hurrying for the ventilation shaft. Inside, an E-Com-Con publicist is welcoming guests when an unknown agitator in the crowd steers that conversation toward the new Octium IV chip, claiming that it has a tiny little modem embedded in every chip that uploads its users' files onto the internet. The agitator is none other than Langly, enjoying a chicken-kebab. Meanwhile, Frohike and Byers are setting up the computer-controlled winch that will lower Frohike into the high-security room that the Octium IV chip is being kept in (a la Mission Impossible). While Langly provides the distraction (faking an alergic reaction), Frohike is lowered into the room. However, not everyone is distracted by Langly's convulsions. A mysterious bearded man checks up on the security cameras in time to see Frohike's descent, and shortly thereafter, Byers becomes alarmed when the winch program is hacked. The security guards notice a radio transmitter in Langly's ears and become suspicious. Just then, the mysterious bearded man enters the Octium IV room, setting off the alarm system. Frohike recognizes the man, "You!" which is cut off by a big, passionate kiss. The mysterious bearded man grabs the chip and takes off, heading for the men's bathroom, just as the security guards escort Langly into the room. Discovering the chip missing, a full body cavity search is ordered. A mysterious woman emerges from the men's bathroom and deposits a wig and a beard into the trash on her way out the door. The boys return to the Lone Gunmen Headquarters, in Takoma Park, Maryland. Without the Octium chip in tow, they have no proof for what they hoped would be that week's cover story. Frohike, figuring their plans were known about in advance, performs a sweep of the place, while explaining that the one who stole the chip from them was a hacker by the name of Yves Adele Harlow. He discovers a bugging device which Langly disposes of after venting some frustration. There is little time to stew in their juices, as Byers receives a call that his father has been killed in a car crash in Reston, Virginia. At the funeral of Byers's father (Bertram), Mr. Helms, a colleague gives a moving speech about how Bertram's received his middle name by being named after Franklin Roosevelt. John Byers being named after Kennedy, it's probably a good thing that Byers doesn't have any kids (Carter? Clinton?). During the service, Langly notices a mysterious bearded man in the crowd, and as soon as Byers commends his dad's ashes to the air via model rocket and the crowd disperses, Langly takes off after the bearded man, only to discover that it is not Harlow. Also, Frohike tells Langly of how Byers and his father had a falling out in 1989, when Byers left his cushy government job to hang out with "a couple of hippies." As the three regroup, Mr. Helms joins them to let Byers know that his father's death might not have been an accident. He suggests grimly that Byers's father knew something he shouldn't have, and was targeted for assassination as a result. The Gunmen, though suspicious, are determined to look into it. Their first stop is the home of Byers's father. Frohike slips on a freshly-shampooed carpet and checks into that, while Byers and Langly check his father's computer. Langly discovers that the computer has been cleaned out, leaving nothing but an operating system. After running a sector editor, Langly is able to retrieve a list of deleted files, including a Department of Defense file named "Scenario 12-D." Meanwhile, Frohike discovers that the carpet was shampooed because of a conspicuous blood stain that he discovers under a black light. Byers comes to the conclusion that his father was dead before the car accident, which takes them to the demolition yard. Unfortunately, they're a little late, as the car has already been cubed, but they haul it back anyway. While Byers and Frohike start to peel apart the car, Langly heads over to a virtual reality shooting range to pick up a fellow hacker, Kimmy. Apparently, Langly can't hack the DoD alone, and needs Kimmy's assistance. While Kimmy is reluctant to help, Langly spots Yves Harlow, and rushes over seeking vengence. He's not too good at convincing her to give back the chip, and Kimmy agrees to help Langly because Langly doesn't realize the implicit dangers of threatening a woman who's carrying an uzi. As Kimmy settles in to help the boys out, Frohike discovers a circuit board attached to the car's steering system. The board contains a grafted antenna, which meant that the car could have been controlled remotely. Kimmy hacks into the DoD and locates Scenario 12-D, which is a "airline counterterrorism wargame". At Byers's instruction, Kimmy begins to download it, and, in a poorly lit room, a man at a laptop discovers the intrusion. He alerts his shadowy superior and begins to track the connection. As the text file is being downloaded, the laptop guardian cracks into the Gunmen's computer and begins to scan for files that will reveal their identity (userdata.ini). Despite the threat of discovery and prosecution, Byers insists that the download continues. The laptop guardian is just about to complete the upload of the .ini file when Frohike pulls the plug on the download process. We return to the poorly-lit room, where the shadowy superior is revealed to be none other than Mr. Helms. At this point, the Gunmen contact Mr. Helms to ask him for his DoD password, which is "Overlord." Byers reveals that his father was not murdered, that the body found inside of the car was that of the would-be assassin, who slipped on the freshly-shampooed carpet and shot himself. Bertram Byers then faked the car crash in order to make his enemies think he was dead. Mr. Helms becomes very adamant about finding Bertram, and Byers goes to his father's house for some soul-searching. He finds that his father has a stack of Lone Gunmen editions in his desk, and turns around to come face to face with his father. Byers is overwhelmed with emotion and goes to give his father a hug, but his father slaps him and scolds him for searching for him. Byers Sr. finally explains that the people who invented Scenario 12-D are planning to use it on a highly visible flight over Manhattan. The resulting security frenzy would mean an increase in arms sales. Bertram reminds Byers that it is a small faction, and that it is not "the whole government," and that he also knows the flight that the group is planning on targetting. Byers and his father go to the airport to board the flight from Baltimore to Boston, armed with portable hydrocarbon sniffers. Midway through the flight, Byers and his father realize that the plane might not be carrying a bomb, and call Langly and Frohike to ask them to hack into the plane's navigation system. Under the "Navradio" field, Langly discovers modem protocols, indicating that the plane is being controlled remotely, and according to the pre-programmed flight plan, the plane will be making an unscheduled stop at the corner of Liberty and Washington Streets in Manhattan: The World Trade Center. Langly doesn't have enough processor power to decrypt the system. His system keeps overloading, and he doesn't have enough time to decrypt in background mode. Frohike takes off for the shooting range, where it appears Yves never left. While Yves talks tough, Frohike tells her he's discovered her secret, that the name "Yves Adele Harlow" is an anagram for "Lee Harvey Oswald." Yves patches into Langly's computer with the Octium chip, and the two of them are able to override the protocols and return the power to the pilots. The plane pulls up just in time, knocking an antenna off the top of one of the towers as it passes over. As the passengers disembark from the plane, Byers can barely contain his excitement. With his father's testimony, the Gunmen will be able to publish a paper that can bring down Overlord. However, Bertram is not interested in speaking, thinking that if he says nothing, they will stop gunning for him. Finally, Byers retires to the paper and Frohike reveals that he swiped the Octium chip from Yves, and they have a cover story after all. Click link for pics and audio files from the TV show. Doomsday Scenario: Chris Carter Foresaw 9/11 by Ed Martin Ever since September 11, and throughout the firestorm of its accusation-heavy aftermath, our political leaders have asserted that nobody ever could have imagined a terrorist act as horrific as the piloting of commercial airliners into crowded office buildings. Perhaps they should talk to Chris Carter. Carter, one of the more imaginative writers working in television, is the creator and executive producer of both Fox' former smash "The X-Files" and its spin-off, "The Lone Gunmen." The latter a short-lived series that under-performed in the Nielsen ratings premiered on March 4, 2001 with a storyline that now seems horrific in its familiarity: The halting of a terrorist plot to fly a passenger jet into the twintowers of the World Trade Center. To put it another way, six months before one of the darkest days in American history a broadcast entertainment series presented a fictional version of a scenario shockingly similar to the awful events of that day. For the record, the episode was not actually written by Carter, but by Vince Gilligan, John Shiban and Frank Spotnitz. When a friend of mine brought this to my attention the other day I responded with disbelief. I had seen that pilot, and several other episodes of "Gunmen," early last year. So had many of my friends, in and out of the media.Yet, none of us picked up on this queasy coincidence last fall, or at any time since. This might be explained by the understanding that "Gunmen" was an unremarkable and, apparently, easily forgotten show. But that doesn't explain the utter absence of commentary on this circumstance by the traditionally thrill-seeking media. This seems to be collective amnesia of the highest order. If any outlets did indeed offer comment or reportage, the rest of the media, in a startling break from the ordinary, failed to immediately re-purpose that timely content. The final act of the "Gunmen" pilot, which seemingly made no impact last year, now contains some of the most deeply disturbing images ever created for a scripted entertainment program. One of the Gunmen, John Byers, is actually aboard a crowded 747 that is under the control of a group of computer savvy terrorists who have accessed the plane's on-board navigation system and are steering it toward the towers. (The terrorists are on the ground, not in the plane.) In a sequence that now seems utterly unfathomable, Byers easily enters the cockpit to convey the troubling news and the pilots politely chastise him until they realize that he is right and that someone else is indeed controlling the plane. Chillingly, much of the Manhattan skyline later becomes visible through the cockpit window with the towers at dead center. On the ground, Byers' two partners, also computer savvy, determine that the terrorists are steering the plane specifically toward the corner of Liberty and Washington Streets in lower Manhattan. They even access a detailed computerized flight path. With mere moments to spare, the Gunmen manage to override the terrorists, terminating their control of the plane. The pilots take over and pull the plane upward. As seen through the window of the cockpit, the airliner curves up the side of one of the towers. The plane is then shown skimming the top corner of the building, passing so closely that it scrapes a fence on its roof. It's a night flight, so the near miss seemingly goes unseen by everyone except Byers and the pilots. The Gunmen, a crime fighting, government conspiracy-busting trio who were regulars on "The X-Files" and were unwisely killed off by Carter during one of that show's last episodes (eliminating possible appearances in upcoming "X-Files" feature films), determine that the terrorist group responsible was actually a faction of our own government. These malefactors were seeking to stimulate arms manufacturing in the lean years following the end of the Cold War by bringing down a plane in New York City and fomenting fears of terrorism. Following the attacks of September 11, our government cobbled together a group of film and television writers and asked them to create fantastic terrorism scenarios, so that thought could be given to (and preparations made for?) possible responses to unthinkable horrors. A second look at this episode of "Gunmen" perhaps further justifies such action. Might there be additional episodes of past and present television series that warrant such scrutiny during these increasingly unnerving times? How about the pilot of "Fox' "24," which reveals how a terrorist might skillfully blow a commercial airliner out of the sky and parachute herself to safety?
US Safety System: Kidnapped Airliners Land by Remote Control Der Spiegel A forced landing system developed in the USA will make plane hijackings more difficult: in case of emergency the crew operates a switch - and the machine steers automatically to the next airport. The times for an airplane kidnapper are becoming harder: in America engineers are working to land kidnapped machines in the future by an improved autopilot without assistance of the cockpit on the nearest airport - an emergency switch, that a ground control operates crew; the levers in the airplane are then blocked and the kidnappers can no longer control the plane from the hand controls. According to a recent news release, technicians of US aviation and arms company Raytheon already in August landed a passenger aircraft six times successfully on the military airport at Holloman, New Mexico. The plane was equipped with a special forced landing system without any pilots. The Boeing 727 oriented itself not, as usual, with the radar signals at the end of the runway, but by a combination of GPS satellite and ground signals, which help, to exactly compute the alititude and thus the necessary angle of approach with deviation no greater than one meter." Conspiracy Factory "Personally, I'm not into conspiracy theories except those that are true." "CONSPIRACY- A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy." "The term `domestic terrorism' means activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State." "'Enterprise' means any individual, sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation, business trust, union chartered under the laws of this state, or other legal entity, or any unchartered union, association or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity, and it includes illicit as well as licit enterprises, AND GOVERNMENTAL, as well as other, entities." "Operation NORTHWOODS may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government. Operation Northwoods had called for nothing less than the launch of a secret campaign of terrorism within the United States in order to blame Castro and provoke a war with Cuba." "General Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government. Franks, who successfully led the U.S. military operation to liberate Iraq, expressed his worries in an extensive interview he gave to the men's lifestyle magazine Cigar Aficionado. In the magazine's December edition, the former commander of the military's Central Command warned that if terrorists succeeded in using a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) against the U.S. or one of our allies, it would likely have catastrophic consequences for our cherished republican form of government. Discussing the hypothetical dangers posed to the U.S. in the wake of Sept. 11, Franks said that 'the worst thing that could happen' is if terrorists acquire and then use a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon that inflicts heavy casualties.
If that happens, Franks said, '... the Western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we've seen for a couple of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call democracy. It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important.' Franks didn't speculate about how soon such an event might take place.
Already, critics of the U.S. Patriot Act, rushed through Congress in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, have argued that the law aims to curtail civil liberties and sets a dangerous precedent. But Franks' scenario goes much further. He is the first high-ranking official to openly speculate that the Constitution could be scrapped in favor of a military form of government. Franks ended his interview with a less-than-optimistic note. 'It's not in the history of civilization for peace ever to reign. Never has in the history of man. ... I doubt that we'll ever have a time when the world will actually be at peace.'" "War is merely the continuation of policy by other means." "War is an instrument of political policy." "We've got to understand airpower—its strengths, its weaknesses, and its potential—if we are to fully capitalize on it to at tack an adversary's strategy and to compel him to do our will." "Strategic attacks are defined by objective--not by the weapon system employed, munition used, or target location." "Largely as a response to World War I, the development of airpower began in earnest to enable direct strikes on the enemy's ability to wage war by leapfrogging conventional ground battles. At the same time, ironically, Clausewitz's principles were criticized, primarily
by Liddell Hart, for causing this bloody and costly war. However, Clausewitz's reputation was never seriously hurt because his basic concepts of warfare are not only valid, but timeless—particularly the concepts embodied in his trinity. He defined the
essence of warfare through a trinity comprised of 'primordial violence and passion, chance and probability influenced by creativity, and an instrument of policy subjected to reason alone.' The Clausewitzian Trinity is a construct used at the National War College to illustrate these three elements." "My job was to root out and investigate police corruption, and criminals who've infiltrated the police department.... Sure I went after other policemen. After other policemen that were criminals who happened to join the police department. There were drug dealers, murderers, rapists. These are the types of policemen that I went after. The general public should know there are real, serious criminals in the police department. I don't believe that it should be hidden. Let the policemen know that someone they worked with was a murderer, or a drug dealer." "It seems to me like Justice was stood on its head. In Boston, we had a group of FBI agents who decided to throw the rules out the window. They let a lying witness send innocent men to death row and life in prison. They had a group of mob informants committing murders with impunity. They tipped of killers so they could flee before being arrested. They interfered with local investigations of drug dealing and arms smuggling. We had a bunch of criminals running around killing people under virtual FBI protection. The FBI let innocent men die in prison. We cannot have the FBI winking and looking the other way when their informants go on a crime spree. As the people's representatives, we have an obligation to find out why it happened, and to make sure it never happens again." "A conspiracy theory is the belief that historical or current events are the result of manipulations by one or more secretive powers or conspiracies. A conspiracy theory alleges that some particular event -- such as an assassination, a revolution, or even the failure of a product -- resulted not solely from the visible action of overt political or market forces, but rather from covert manipulation. Because conspiracy theories rely on allegations of covert action, they are frequently difficult to support with evidence. Real conspiracy versus conspiracy theory: The word conspiracy comes from the Latin "conspirare," ("to breath together"), and in contemporary usage it is a situation where two or more people agree to perform an illegal or immoral act. The essential components are the involvement of a group of people, secrecy and malicious intent. The existence of countless thousands of such conspiracies well known and includes organized crime and gangs as well as cartels in restraint of trade, organized political bribery, and so forth. At any given time, hundreds or thousands of conspiracies in this sense are afoot. For a discussion of this sort of conspiracy, see the article conspiracy. Historians generally use the term conspiracy to refer to conspiracies that are considered to be real, proven, or at least seriously plausible and with some element of support. The waters are muddied by the fact that powerful groups or individuals may have an interest in trying to discredit those who accuse them of real or imagined crimes. Ridicule, and even the diagnosis of schizophrenia has been used as a means of silencing political dissent, for example in the Soviet Union (see anti-psychiatry). Note: The term conspiracy theory is sometimes also used refer to sociological attempts to study the phenomenon of conspiracy. Many governments use intelligence agencies to promote national policies in secretive ways -- in several cases including the use of sabotage, propaganda, and assassination. Intelligence agencies, such as the CIA, KGB, MI6, and Mossad, are a common element of political conspiracy theories precisely because they are known to participate in some activities similar to those described in conspiracy theories. There are conspiracy theories based on the notion that AIDS was a man-made disease (i.e. created by scientists in a laboratory). Some of these theories allege that HIV was created by a conspiratorial group or by a secret agency as a tool of genocide. * The United States Department of Defense Information Awareness Office (IAO) has many similarities to conspiracy theories. First, its avowed purpose is to gather and correlate information on ordinary citizens for the purpose of predicting terrorism and other crime. Second, its logo depicts the eye in the pyramid, a symbol associated with Illuminati and Masonic representations of power or divinity, casting a beam over the globe of the Earth [like New World Order symbolism on dollar bill]. Lastly, the name "Iao" is a Gnostic word for God, used in the Golden Dawn and Thelema among others. ["On November 27, 2002, San Francisco Weekly columnist Matt Smith decided to illustrate the perils of information proliferation to John Poindexter personally by publishing a column containing Poindexter's home address and phone number, along with those of his next door neighbors. The information quickly propagated through the Internet, and protestors created numerous web sites with this data, and with satellite photographs of Poindexter's house."] In the 2003 Iraq War, Iraqi resistance was strong at first and then collapsed suddenly. A conspiracy theory emerged in Iraq and elsewhere that there had been a "safqua" - a secret deal - between the US and the Iraqi military elite, wherein the elite were bribed to stand down. This conspiracy theory was ignored or ridiculed in the US media. In late May, 2003, General Tommy Franks, who had been the head of the US forces in the conflict, confirmed in an interview with Defense News that the US government had paid off high-level Iraqi military officials and that they had stated that "I am working for you now". How important this was to the course of the conflict was not entirely clear at the time of this writing (May 24, 2003).
Operation NORTHWOODS (q.v.), before its declassification, was long considered by most to be a conspiracy theory." ["The document was rejected by John F. Kennedy and with the Bay of Pigs Invasion disaster contributed to efforts by John F. Kennedy to break the military-industrial complex that was constantly asking for war."] "Zionist conspiracy theories regarding the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks and 9-11 domestic conspiracy." ["The 9/11 domestic conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory which asserts that George W. Bush or American intelligence agencies knew, in advance, about the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks, and allowed it to happen or even caused it. Project for a New American Century plans seeming to call for an Pearl Harbor type "event" to motivate the extension of US power abroad. See also, Bush family conspiracy theory and October Surprise."] "Mayor Giuliani — a former federal prosecutor who won notice for 'pursuing' the Mafia — had relatives linked to organized crime, including a mobbed-up cousin who was gunned down by FBI agents in 1977, a new book says. Lewis D'Avanzo, a son of the mayor's uncle and a guest at Giuliani's first wedding in 1968, was a 'ruthless and widely feared mob associate' who headed a massive stolen car ring, according to FBI documents and interviews detailed in Rudy! An Investigative Biography of Rudolph Giuliani, by Village Voice senior editor Wayne Barrett. Due in stores next week, the book sketches a largely unflattering portrait of the clan, depicting his father, Harold, as a hothead and the "muscle" behind a brother-in-law's loansharking operation, run out of a Brooklyn bar. Along with cracking heads, it says the mayor's father served time in state prison for a stickup, rarely held an on-the-books job and once was a gunman in a mob shootout in Brighton Beach, Brooklyn. According to the book, Giuliani's cousin Lewis D'Avanzo was known as "Steve the Blond" and listed as armed and dangerous in FBI bulletins. His criminal record included a 10-year federal sentence for the armed hijacking of a truck loaded with $240,000 worth of mercury. The book alleges that he was suspected of taking part in several murders. D'Avanzo was gunned down by the FBI in October 1977, when he tried to run down an agent after being stopped on a warrant that accused him and two associates of transporting 100 stolen luxury cars. Quoting an unnamed friend of D'Avanzo, the book describes a 1962 shootout pitting a local mobster against the mayor's father and Leo D'Avanzo, Lewis D'Avanzo's father. The book says Leo was later sanctioned by mob bosses for shooting at a Mafia member. Leo D'Avanzo, who was known in family circles as a black sheep, ran loansharking and gambling operations out of a Brooklyn bar where Giuliani's father worked as a bartender. In his role as debt collector, his father 'broke legs, smashed kneecaps, crunched noses.' Joan Ellen D'Avanzo, a cousin who at one time lived with Giuliani when he was a youngster, became a drug addict who was beaten to death in 1973 at age 34. Her cause of death was listed as undetermined, but several family members said she was murdered." "Here's another admission which destroys the government's lie that it couldn't possibly have foreseen the use of planes to ram buildings. And explains why NORAD was tricked into not intercepting the hijacked airliners [except for 100 Years of Killer Robot Jetplanes - USAF Unmanned Vehicles Museum - Wright Patterson AFB, Ohio
"Did the U.S. government really pay the Mafia protection money during World War II? At the beginning of WWII, America wasn't yet fighting, but her support for the Allies was clear. The 1941 Lend-Lease Act enabled FDR to ship weapons and essential materials to England. But were U.S. harbors being watched? In 1942, fire broke out on The Normandie, a luxury liner turned troop carrier. Was it Nazi sabotage? Decades later, Lucky Luciano claimed the Mafia had burnt The Normandie, and in the aftermath struck a protection deal with the government to prevent further 'Nazi sabotage'.
An anonymous interviewee supports Lucky Luciano's story that the mob torched the Normandie. An archival interview with J. Edgar Hoover offers one take on this extraordinary assertion. Modern scholars examine the evidence of wartime ties between the Mob and the government. Officially, the cause was negligence. Unofficially, the authorities suspected it was the act of Nazi saboteurs. But when the ocean liner Normandie--recently converted to a troop carrier--caught fire in New York Harbor, the government had to take steps to prevent such setbacks in the future. For decades, rumors have persisted that one of the steps they took was to 'hire' the Mafia to make sure no additional 'accidents' happened. Of course, that looks suspiciously like a famously successful Mafia business model, and there are some who believe that the Normandie fire was actually a shakedown. In fact, Lucky Luciano is said to have boasted as much. Could this really be true? Did the government enlist help from the least likely of sources--and under duress--from an underground enemy? with testimony from military scholars, Mafia experts and an intriguing anonymous eyewitness to the Normandie fire, DEAD MEN'S SECRETS explores one of the most intriguing myths of America during WWII." 1942, Feb 9 - Normandie burned and sank in New York Harbor during its conversion to an Allied trip transport ship. It was once regarded as most elegant ocean liner ever built. (MC, 2/9/02) "He wrote his name in blood on the sidewalks of New York and made himself the Boss of all Bosses. Arriving in America at the age of nine and embarking upon a life of crime at age 14, Charles 'Lucky' Luciano rose through the ranks of the New York Mafia like a pistol shot. By the age of 34, he was running the Sicilian mob like a U.S. corporation diversifying the rackets, organizing the gangs and running his own political candidates. Examine Lucky's 30-year career as CEO of Murder, Inc. through rare interviews and extensive archival footage. Mob insiders recall the history-making meetings held in Luciano's Waldorf-Astoria headquarters. And naval records reveal how his top-secret war efforts earned him parole from a 50-year sentence. Journey into the dangerous world of La Cosa Nostra for the definitive portrait of one of the most notorious criminals in history." "As to private discords among your soldiers, the only remedy is to expose them all to some sort of danger; for in such cases, fear generally unites them. Surely no one can be called a good man who, in order to support himself, takes up a profession that obliges him at all times to be rapacious, fraudulent, and cruel." "Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob
on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it
is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't
want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who
determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along,
whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or
a communist dictatorship. 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 tell them
they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism
and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." "Some of my packmules have experienced three campaigns, but they still don't know anything about waging war." "US special forces rescued Colonel President Qadaffi, and checked for visiting world leaders, before US bombers attacked with Operation EL DORADO CANYON in 1987, in order to prevent an 'international incident'. You wouldn't believe what really goes on at the Pentagon." How to replace illiterate truck-driving pilots with Robots "The Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle will be the norm for the future, providing vastly more affordable and effective warfighting capability for our forces. We are bringing these same integrated system concepts into the army through the Future Combat System Program." "Former Air Force chief of staff General Michael Dugan [fired in the middle of Desert Storm #1 thanks to Congressional complaints written by this webmaster] once commented to me that the Air Force is producing a generation of illiterate truck drivers. He worried that officers who aspire to senior leadership positions know a great deal about airplanes and precious little about airpower. They can skillfully talk with their hands about air tactics but are ill prepared to think with their heads about air strategy. For 20 years I have watched the crčme de la crčme of the Air Force officer corps come to Air University's Air Command and Staff College (ACSC) and Air War College (AWC). For the most part, these officers have been appallingly ignorant of the bedrock foundation of airpower thinking, virtually oblivious to airpower theory and its development, and without any appreciation of airpower history and its meaning." "A warrant charging the 134 Air Refueling Wing commander with driving under the influence of alcohol is on file at the Loudon County Sheriff's Office in connection with a Dec. 18 traffic stop. According to Loudon County Sheriff Tim Guider, truck drivers helped Deputy Jason Scott stop Col. John Keenan near mile marker 76 on Interstate 75. A blood-alcohol test showed the veteran military officer had a 0.38 blood-alcohol level, well above the legal limit of 0.08 and enough to cause someone to go into a comatose state, the sheriff said. Keenan is being treated at an undisclosed medical facility. Col. Tim Deering is currently acting commander of the 134th Air Refueling Wing at McGhee Tyson Airbase. Guider said this is apparently Keenan's first offense and that when he's released from medical care, he'll be taken into custody. The Loudon County warrant states that Scott was dispatched on a call of a reckless driver headed southbound on I-75. The vehicle was not speeding. Deputies couldn't determine if he was under the influence of alcohol because he didn't smell like he had been drinking, but was very disoriented, Guider said. The sheriff said Scott called for an ambulance to transport Keenan to the emergency room at Fort Sanders Medical Center-Loudon. Major General Gus L. Harriet, adjutant general of The Tennessee Air National Guard, released the following statement: 'We are certainly aware of the situation concerning the commander of the 134th Air Refueling Wing. We have taken the appropriate steps to ensure that Tennessee Air National Guard Operations continue as normal at McGhee Tyson Air National Guard base. Col. Tim Deering is the acting commander.'" "When it came time to release Keenan from the Loudon County facility, deputies were told that Keenan should go to Peninsula Hospital in Louisville, Tenn., in Blount County. Peninsula Hospital provides inpatient mental health and alcohol/drug crisis stabilization services for adults, adolescents and children." "Deputy Jason Scott was murdered this morning when he stepped out of his car as he responded to a domestic violence call at the home of Loudon County Assistant District Attorney Frank Harvey. Harvey's son, 16 year old Michael Harvey, is suspected in Officer Scott's death. At this hour, Michael Harvey remains barricaded inside the Harvey residence on Palmer Road in the Shiloh Acres Subdivision. More than one hundred officers from various regional law enforcement agencies are on the scene and at least three other officers are reported to have been wounded in attempting to take the suspect into custody. Speaking to reporters from near the scene of the ongoing standoff, a tearful Sheriff Guider shared his memories of Officer Scott, who had been with the Sheriff's Department for three years." "According to Loudon County officials, 16 year old Michael Harvey is dead. Law enforcement entered the Harvey home in Loudon County between noon and 1:00 pm on Saturday, ending a tense standoff lasting more than 24 hours. Michael Harvey was found dead in a bedroom with a gunshot wound to the head. It appears that he had been dead more than 12 hours when he was found, according to sources. Michael Harvey, son of Loudon County Assistant District Attorney, Frank Harvey, had been holed up inside his family's home after Deputy Jason Scott was gunned down there at 8:30 am on Friday. It is believed that the teenager killed Scott as he exited his police vehicle. Loudon County 911 dispatched officers in response to a domestic violence call made by Michael Harvey's mother, who said that her son attacked her with a metal pipe." "You go fuck around with the law and all hell breaks loose!" 9/11 inquiry subpoenas Pentagon BBC NEWS A United States federal commission investigating the 11 September 2001 attacks has voted to subpoena the Pentagon. The panel said they were "dismayed" that documents they had requested about the country's air defences on the day of the attack had not been provided. They subpoenaed the Federal Aviation Administration last month, accusing the organisation of slowing down their inquiry. The 10-member, bipartisan panel has until May to report on its investigation into lapses in national security relating to the plane hijackings that led to the deaths of about 3,000 people. They had requested information from the North American Aerospace Defense Command, Norad, which is responsible for protecting North American airspace. Ministerial backing "The commission has encountered some serious delays in obtaining needed documents from the Department of Defense," they said in a statement. "We are especially dismayed by problems in the production of the records of activities of ... Norad and certain Air Force commands on September 11, 2001." "The commission has therefore voted to issue a subpoena requiring the production of these records." They issued a subpoena to the Federal Aviation Administration in October requesting information on air traffic control tracking of hijacked aircraft. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was said to back the commission's request for documentation. "The commission has a statutory deadline to meet," said Defense Undersecretary for Intelligence, Stephen Cambone. "The Secretary has directed that the department be responsive to held ensure the commission can meet its deadlines."
Theologian Charges White House Complicity in 9/11 Attack [Damage Control?] by Nick Welsh There's nothing the least bit wild-eyed or hysterical about David Ray Griffin. In person, he's disarmingly calm, and speaks in the unflappably precise and deliberate style of a lifelong academic. Which is exactly what Griffin is. A respected philosopher of religion at the Claremont School of Theology since the 1970s and longtime Santa Barbara resident, Griffin is now raising questions that even President Bush's harshest critics are afraid to think, let alone ask aloud. In his latest book, The New Pearl Harbor — released just two weeks ago — Griffin all but accuses the Bush administration of taking a dive on September 11 and giving Al Qaeda terrorists an unobstructed shot at the World Trade Center. According to Griffin, a case can be made that the Bush administration arranged the attack, or allowed it to happen. He is aware that he may be dismissed as a conspiracy nut, but given the "transcendent importance" of the issue, Griffin is willing to assume that risk and has taken to repeating Michael Moore's line on the subject: "Personally, I'm not into conspiracy theories except those that are true." I met with Griffin over coffee to discuss his book and the September 11 investigation. The following is an edited account of their conversation. NICK WELSH: Is there a smoking gun that shows the Bush administration knew 9/11 was likely to happen and did nothing about it? DAVID RAY GRIFFIN: I think there are four. One is the fact that standard operating procedures for dealing with possibly hijacked airplanes were not followed on 9/11. Those procedures call for fighter jets to be sent out immediately upon any sign that a plane may have been hijacked. These jets typically get to the plane within no later than 15 minutes anywhere in the United States. And on that day, there were four airplanes that went for a half-hour or more after they were hijacked without jets intercepting them. NICK WELSH: What's the official explanation of that? DAVID RAY GRIFFIN: I'm afraid the press has not done its job. They have not forced government officials to explain why standard operating procedures were not followed that day, nor have they pressed the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) to explain why they didn't report these hijackings as they were supposed to. The official story is that [the fighter jets] were very late. NICK WELSH: And the other smoking guns? DAVID RAY GRIFFIN: The second strongest piece of evidence I would say is the crash at the Pentagon. The physical evidence contradicts so violently the official account, that the Pentagon was hit by a Boeing 757 — Flight 77, that is. The physical evidence, photographs, and eyewitness testimony say that the Pentagon was hit by something that caused a hole no larger than 18 feet in diameter. The story the Pentagon put out, and was published by the Washington Post, was that the hole in the Pentagon was five stories high and 200 feet wide. If you look at the photographs taken by Tom Horan of the Associated Press — that's just not the size of the hole. But if the hole was only 18 feet wide, it had to have been created by something other than a Boeing. Whatever went into the Pentagon pierced six reinforced walls. This was the west wing, the part of the Pentagon being refurbished and reinforced. These walls were extra strong, and yet whatever it was went through six walls creating a hole about seven feet in diameter in the sixth wall. This had to have been something with a very powerful head on it. A Boeing 757 has a very fragile nose, and would not have pierced through all those walls; it would have been crushed by hitting the Pentagon. And given that it only penetrated these three rings, the rest of the aircraft would have been sitting outside on the yard. And yet the photographs taken just as the fire trucks got there — very shortly after the crash — show no plane whatsoever. NICK WELSH: What do they show? DAVID RAY GRIFFIN: They show no aircraft whatsoever. And everyone agrees on this. The official story is that the whole aircraft went inside the Pentagon. The problem with that — the firefighters in there would have seen the airplane. They would have seen the engines, they would have seen the aluminum fuselage, but they reported nothing. Ed Plower, the fire chief, when asked what he saw, said, "I didn't see any big pieces, no fuselage, no engines, no nothing." But about a month later, when asked he said, "Oh yes, I saw all that." His memory had had time to be refreshed. NICK WELSH: If what you're saying is accurate — that it was a missile — then what happened to the plane and all the people on it? DAVID RAY GRIFFIN: That's why I stress I'm not trying to give an account of what really happened. I have no idea what happened to Flight 77. NICK WELSH: President Bush has also been criticized for behaving somewhat bizarrely that day. DAVID RAY GRIFFIN: As he and the Secret Service got word that a second plane had crashed into the World Trade Center and that three planes had been hijacked, there could have been no possible doubt in their mind that the United States was under terrorist attack . . . The most horrendous attack the United States had ever suffered. And they would have had to assume that one or more of them were heading toward President Bush himself. And so upon learning about this, the Secret Service surely would have whisked him away immediately. In fact, one Secret Service agent on the scene said, "We're out of here." But obviously he got overruled because President Bush stayed there. After Andrew Card reported the second crash on the World Trade Center, the president just nodded as if he understood and said, "We're going to go ahead with the reading lesson." And he sat there another 15 minutes listening to the children read a story about a pet goat [while holding the book upside down because he's dyslexic and illiterate]. This was a photo op and when it was over he lingered around talking to the children and talking to the teacher. Bill Sammon, of the Washington Times, wrote a very pro-Bush book, yet he comments how casual and relaxed the president was given the fact he'd just learned the country was under attack. He said Bush took his own sweet time and in fact called him "Our Dawdler in Chief." And then the president went on national TV, going forward with an interview that had been planned and announced in advance . . . then they took their regularly scheduled motorcade back to the airport. In other words, [Bush and the Secret Service] showed no fear whatsoever that they would be targeted for attack, which strongly suggests they knew how many aircraft were being hijacked and what their targets were. NICK WELSH: Couldn't it have been that he was trying to project calm in the eye of the storm, that this was Bush projecting Churchillian resolve in the face of calamity? DAVID RAY GRIFFIN: People who want to believe such things can, of course, imagine such scenarios. But the president in a situation like that does not make the decisions; the Secret Service team makes the decisions. And the guys in the Secret Service are trained to be ready for a catastrophe like this where they make snap decisions and whisk the president to safety immediately. They would have had an escape route planned; they would have had contingencies planned — they always do. It is at least not very plausible to think they would have remained there and endangered the lives of all the children and teachers at that school in order to exude that Churchillian confidence. NICK WELSH: What about the plane that crashed down? DAVID RAY GRIFFIN: We know that on Flight 93, which crashed over Pennsylvania, the passengers were trying to get control of the aircraft. They had decided the hijackers did not have bombs and probably didn't even have guns. And because their plane didn't take off until a half-hour after the others, they knew that the others had crashed into the World Trade Center — so they knew they were going to die anyway, even if they didn't do anything. So as one of the passengers is saying, "They're doing it, they're forcing their way into the cabin, they're going to make it." As soon as that happened, with the FBI listening in, the plane went down. There was a whoosh, then the sound of wind. And people on the ground reported hearing what Vietnam veterans said sounded like a missile. Furthermore, there was debris from the plan eight miles from the crash site, suggesting the plane had been hit and stuff started falling out. And one of the engines was found over a mile from the crash site. Of course, if it had been a missile that downed the plane, it most likely would have been a heat-seeking missile that would have found the engine and knocked it off. NICK WELSH: Why would the government have an interest in doing this? So the hijackers couldn't speak to anyone? DAVID RAY GRIFFIN: That would be a very good reason. If it were a conspiracy and the hijackers knew about it, it would have been very threatening to those who made the plan to have anybody left alive. Again, I don't pretend to know, but that's at least a plausible scenario. There were many rumors that day that the plane was shot down, but the government denied it. NICK WELSH: You suggest that the World Trade Center buildings must have been detonated with explosives to account for the heat generated and the speed the structures collapsed on themselves. That sounds extreme. What's the evidence? [PBS TV Documentary: Silverstein, FDNY Confess WTC 7 Razed with Controlled Demolitions on 9-11-2001] DAVID RAY GRIFFIN: The evidence is cumulative — several things that point to controlled demolition. First, a steel-framed building, according to all the reading I've done, has never collapsed solely because of fire. They will bend and buckle in a very large all-consuming fire that lasts for a very long time. But they have never collapsed. NICK WELSH: But it was not just fire — it was fire and impact at the same time. DAVID RAY GRIFFIN: The twin towers were very large buildings and extremely well built with a lot of redundancy. Even people who believe the official theory say that the crash of the plane into the towers should have been insignificant, that the shock would have been immediate, but it was over very soon and that the buildings were extremely solid and stable and not moving. In the south tower, much of the fuel from it spilled outside as it collided into the corner. So there was a giant firebomb which looked very impressive, but what that means is that most of the fuel was burned up within a minute, so there was not much fuel inside. Therefore, the fire in the south tower had almost gone out in less than an hour. And that brings us to another strange fact about the towers. If the official story were correct, that the combination of the crash and the fire brought the buildings down, we would expect the north tower to have come down first, because it was hit first. And yet the south tower collapsed first. It collapsed in less than an hour. That makes perfect sense if you're willing to accept that it was caused by controlled demolition, meaning the building was wired with explosives. And if the official story has it that the buildings were brought down by fire, you'd want the buildings to go down before the fire had completely gone out. NICK WELSH: What you're suggesting sounds like something from. X-Files. But on X-Files, you always had agents Scully and Mulder trying to get the truth out. Here we don't have any Scullys and Mulders. You'd think this whole new unilateral expression of military supremacy might have opponents within the administration coming unglued and that they'd be leaking info damaging to Bush, but we don't hear those voices. Why not? DAVID RAY GRIFFIN: Members of the FBI, the CIA, and other intelligence agencies have taken oaths to not reveal things they've been told not to reveal . . . and if they violate this oath, repercussions may occur. You have a wife and children, and somebody says to you, "If you go public with that I cannot guarantee the safety of your family." Would you go public with that? You have to choose between your family's welfare and the welfare of the nation, and your story might not do that much good. You might just be denounced as a conspiracy kook. The press would ignore you, belittle you. People might look into your past and find that you had done some things you're not so proud of. People would learn very quickly to keep their mouths shut. NICK WELSH: Let's say there has been this complicity. To what end? DAVID RAY GRIFFIN: There were several benefits that could have been anticipated from 9/11. One was the so-called Patriot Act. It did appear that the Patriot Act, given how fast it was rushed into Congress, voting had already been prepared. The Patriot Act is so large that it's inconceivable it could have been written after 9/11. Rushing it through Congress when most members had not even read a small portion of it was clearly one benefit, giving the government increased powers. Also, there was the desire to wage war in Afghanistan to force out the Taliban and put an American-friendly government in place because of the desire of Unical and other gas companies to build an oil pipeline, which they felt was too dangerous with the Taliban in power. There was a meeting in Berlin in July 2001, a final effort to get an agreement between the Taliban and the United States that would allow a sort of joint government, where the Taliban would share power with more American-friendly leaders. The Taliban refused, at which point they were told, "If you don't take our carpet of gold, we'll bury you under a carpet of bombs." The Pakistani representative at this meeting said the Americans told him that the war would start before the snows came that October. And after 9/11 happened, there was exactly the right amount of time for the U.S. forces to get organized to begin the war, and the war began on October 7. Another benefit is that many senior members of the Bush administration had for a long time wanted to attack Iraq. Getting control of the oil there was one motive; the more general motive was to secure a military presence in that part of the world. NICK WELSH: Don't you think it's a good thing that Saddam Hussein was taken out, and don't you think Bush had a moral obligation to do so because it was his father who was responsible for building up Hussein in the first place? DAVID RAY GRIFFIN: Certainly you can say there were some benefits to the people of Iraq. But if we had an obligation to take out Saddam Hussein then we have obligations to take out many other nefarious leaders around the world, many of whom are far worse, believe it or not, than Saddam Hussein. And the sorry history is that we have in fact supported such leaders and that Saddam Hussein was in power only because of American support. He remained in power after gassing the Kurds became common knowledge. Donald Rumsfeld himself visited Saddam at that period. Actually our aid to Saddam went up after we knew that he had done this. NICK WELSH: So you think this is mostly about oil. DAVID RAY GRIFFIN: It is to a significant extent about oil, given the projections that the world is beginning to run out of oil. The United States wants to get control of it because our way of life, which is so dependent upon oil, is nonnegotiable. And also because military dominance itself runs to great extent on oil. But it's not just about oil. It's about geopolitical dominance. And this brings up the U.S. Space command. In the document "Rebuilding America's Defenses," published in 2000 by the Project for the New American Century — an organization founded by people such as [Richard] Perle and [Paul] Wolfowitz and [Dick] Cheney and Rumsfeld — there is a statement in there that says we need to move forward with this revolution in military affairs. The central feature of this is the augmentation of the U.S. Space Command through which the United States would have what's called now Full Spectrum Dominance. In addition to having dominance over land, air, and sea, we would have dominance in space. But building the space stations and the satellites for the weaponization of space will be an extremely expensive undertaking. One projection has the first stage of it being about a trillion dollars. So an enormous amount of money has to be shifted from the American taxpayers and other parts of the economy to the military and the space command. The document states that such a revolution in military affairs will probably proceed very slowly absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event such as a new Pearl Harbor. NICK WELSH: Hence the title of your book . . . You've complained the American media has been asleep at the switch on this. How do you account for this? DAVID RAY GRIFFIN: It is very difficult for Americans to face the possibility that their own government may have caused or deliberately allowed such a heinous event. Secondly, one can understand that insofar as the media is owned by companies like General Electric, which is one of the largest makers of weapons, stations like NBC that are owned by GE would not wish to publicize these connections. And finally, 9/11 was immediately treated not only as a matter of patriotism but almost as a religious event. Bush declared his war on terrorism from the national cathedral. And so from then on, any questioning of the official account could be and was criticized as being undemocratic and almost sacrilegious. I at least hope that if we can begin to get a public discussion of 9/11 and of the many, many discrepancies between the official story and what at least appear to be the facts, that some of those people might be emboldened to step forward. NICK WELSH: How has researching and writing this book affected you personally? DAVID RAY GRIFFIN: I fear that our democracy is in much worse shape than I had imagined, and that even the appearance of democracy we now have might be quickly swept aside.
September 11 - US Government accused US Air Force, commercial and civilian pilots hold 72-hour independent inquiry in Washington DC FRONT PAGE STORY 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. 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. 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." 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." 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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. The FBI also came in for criticism for the various pieces of contradictory evidence it has published regarding the suspects. Questions are now being asked as to how incorrect information was given out regarding the ID cards of the suspects, and the seat numbers they supposedly occupied after boarding the flights. None of the suspects named by the FBI appeared on any of the official passenger lists. A further point was how the FBI had managed to retrieve the passport of one of the suspects amid the molten and twisted remains of thousands of tons of steel and rubble brought about by the Twin Towers collapse. Dr. Paul Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury, and presently Senior Research Fellow at Stamford University, has lent his support to the independent inquiry findings. He also claims that Osama Bin Laden was not responsible for September 11th. The doctor has challenged President Bush to make public the so-called "irrefutable evidence" incriminating Bin Laden. Colonel Donn de Grand-Pre 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. 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. "Not for the first time the American public might be being mislead, by those with ulterior motives, into lending its support to a war, this time against Iraq, that has no bearing whatsoever on the interests of the people of the USA." 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. See Also: Contact Info:
|
|
Repentant Pentagon arms dealer reveals disgruntled U.S. military on the verge of revolt By John Kaminski Back in May 2003, a journalist in Portugal reported on a sensational, marathon meeting of a group of U.S. pilots that issued a report concluding that the story told by the U.S. government about what happened on Sept. 11, 2001 was improbable and unlikely. Except for several notices on the Internet, that story was basically never reported in the U.S., and largely debunked when the reporter flubbed the name of the organizer, creating disbelief in the minds of many readers. The record was corrected in stunning fashion Feb. 25 on Alex Jones' Infowars radio program when former Pentagon arms salesman Donn de Grand-Pre, author of three books that allege 9/11 was an inside job, set the record straight, because he was the man who organized that conference. That 72-hour non-stop symposium by a group of military and civilian pilots concluded the flight crews of the four passenger airliners involved in the 9/11 tragedy had no control over their aircraft. de Grand-Pre, a retired Army colonel, is the author of "A Window on America," "Confessions of an Arms Peddler" and his latest, "Barbarians Inside the Gates." His thesis in the third book "is that the wars we have engaged in for whatever reasons since the end of World War II have not only been unconstitutionally waged, but have caused a net loss in political power. Each war was waged to divert our attention away from the true enemy within, and toward a contrived enemy outside our borders." de Grand-Pre explained that his third book actually has three parts: "OK, I've got three books out under the title, "Barbarians Inside the Gates." Book 1 was "The Serpent's Sting," Book 2 is "The Viper's Venom," Book 3, which just came out is "The Rattler's Revenge." "And I'd like to quote from Book 2, which came out October of 2002. There is a very important paragraph there. It says, "The trigger for the 911 activity was the imminent and unstoppable worldwide financial collapse which can only be prevented temporarily by a major war, perhaps to become known as World War III. To bring it off one more time, martial law will probably be imposed in the United States." de Grand-Pre was the top U.S. arms dealer to the Middle East under the Ford and Carter administrations. What he saw caused him to leave government service and begin investigating the forces he saw warping our nation's future. In the interview with Jones, de Grand-Pre made several stunning assertions, among them:
In his various interviews and publications, deGrand-Pre has called 9/11 "an administrative coup d'etat." He suggests the only way the neocons can be stopped is by a military coup d'etat, and estimates 70 percent of key military personnel are in favor of such a step. But the possibility is complicated, he says, by the large number of key military players who have gone over to the Council on Foreign Relations team. Some of these players, including three- and four-star generals, however, may side with the military while pretending to be on the side of the neocons. de Grand-Pre insists he is in personal contact with members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The truly patriotic members of the military have had to sit there and take all these wild schemes by corporate-controlled politicians. de Grand-Pre's prediction? "I think those days are coming to an end. The military ain't going to take it any longer." In the interview with Jones, de Grand-Pre also asserted:
In earlier interviews, de Grand-Pre has recounted that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Richard Myers, had 500 copies of the 24-page report made and sent out, including, to the White House. Assessing Myers' reaction, de Grand Pre said, "I'm quite sure that he believed in it. I think that he still believes in it. You can understand the difficulties. The civilian administration, of course, won't recognize it as such. "There's a definite cleavage between the military of the Pentagon and the civilian hierarchy - and never the twain shall meet." Jones triggered a response from de Grand Pre when he mentioned a 2002 article in the Washington Times that said morale at the Pentagon had never been lower. De Grand-Pre responded: "I can verify that from Col. Dick Schultz, who is a friend of mine in the Joint Chiefs. Morale was not only low but he said some of the troops are ready to mutiny. If it wasn't for the fact that the government, the civilian hierarchy, has control over retirements, they would probably be blood in the streets by now." When other news outlets began checking on this story angle, Jones noted that Pentagon officials were apoplectic. "... they panicked and flew the officers on jets to luxury vacations and had these focus groups. It even talked about a possible mutiny. People were just totally distraught. What would make them become distraught overnight in the Pentagon?" de Grand-Pre's answer was chilling, and revealed the possibility of a military coup d'etat has been simmering in the corridors of the Pentagon for some time. "It wasn't an overnight thing. You see, as I outline in book 1, and I carry that on in book 2, as well as book 3, we were on the verge of a military coup d'etat. And this was long in the planning and even after the 78 days of bombing Kosovo, it became critical. And we were close to a coup d'etat at that time. In my survey of the reports and the pilots who worked with that, a coup was a possibility. "In fact, a coup d'etat was pulled on the morning of September 11th. Only it was an administrative or what we call a cold coup d'etat." Jones' translation of that was "a counter-revolutionary junta." de Grand-Pre concurred, and added: "And as we delved into that, we found that the culprits, including Rumsfeld, were part of a neocon group that had been planning this thing for literally years prior to September 11th." In a previous interview that appeared on Michael Rivero's What Really Happened website, de Grand-Pre had already outlined his conclusions about 9-11. "The 9-11 activity and horrific destruction of US property and lives was intentionally meant to trigger a psychological and patriotic reaction on the part of the US citizens, which is paving the way for "combined UN activity" (using the fig leaf of NATO) for striking key targets in both the Middle East/ South Asia and the Balkans. The goal continues to be ultimate destruction of all national sovereignty and establishment of a global government. "The trigger for the 9-11 activity was the imminent and unstoppable world-wide financial collapse, which can only be prevented (temporarily) by a major war, perhaps to become known as WW 111. To bring it off (one more time), martial law will probably be imposed in the United States. de Grand-Pre had also sounded the same themes on Jackie Patru's Radio Sweet Liberty Webcast. "The so-called terrorist attack was in fact a superbly executed military operation against the United States, requiring the utmost professional military skill in command, communications and control. It was flawless in timing, in the choice of selected aircraft to be used as guided missiles, and in the coordinated delivery of those missiles to their pre-selected targets. As a tactical military exercise against two significant targets (world financial center and the citadel of world strategic military planning), the attack, from a psychological impact on the American public, equalled the Japanese "surprise" attack on Pearl Harbor 7 Dec 1941. But the overriding question of that original group of pilots was: If we are at war, who is the enemy? The group determined that the enemy is within the gates, that he has infiltrated into the highest policy-making positions at the federal level, and has absolute control, not only of the purse strings, but of the troop buildup and deployment of our military forces, including active, reserve and National Guard units. Read the complete interview of Donn de Grand-Pre with Alex Jones at WARFOLLY.COM as it has not yet been posted on Jones' website, although there is a transcript posted there of his recent interview with former German defense minister Andreas von Buelow, who sounded many of the themes de Grand-Pre discussed. See PRISONPLANET.COM. de Grand-Pre's books are not yet available on the web, but more information can be obtained from de Grand-Pre Publishing Ltd. at 540-547-2996. John Kaminski is the author of America's Autopsy Report, a collection of his Internet essays published by Dandelion Books and featured on hundreds of websites around the world. For more information on how to get this book or to financially support his work, go to JOHNKAMINSKI.COM. Or, to read some more of his recent essays for free, go to RUDEMACEDON.CA. APFN.NET Forum - Donn de Grand-Pre: THE ENEMY IS INSIDE THE GATES |
|
Interview of Colonel Donn de Grand-Pre Pentagon's contingency plan to overthrow USA with military coup d'etat if police, prosecutors and Congress refuse to arrest Bush Gang for treason Pentagon and National Guard "Civil Affairs" officers to run federal, state and local governments in USA Alex Jones Radio Show AJ: He put on a symposium a few years ago that made headlines in major newspapers, in Portugal. We had one of those articles posted. And it says, "Portugal-based investigative journalist has presented The News, with the version of the September 11th attacks that has to-date failed to attract the attention of the international press. The report, compiled by the independent inquiry into the September 11th World Trade Center attack, warns the American public that the government's official version of the events does not stand up to scrutiny." And the man who put this on was Col. Donn de Grand , who's an American in a 72-hour non-stop symposium, deliberation by a group of military and civilian pilots under the chairmanship of Col. Donn de Grand. After deliberating non-stop for 72-hours, has concluded the flight crews of the four passenger airliners involved in the September 11th tragedy had no control over their aircraft. They get into how the globalists clearly carried it out. Now, this was two years ago, folks. A very cutting edge... Now the mainstream foreign press has addressed it. And most Europeans believe the U.S. government carried it out. A lot of Americans are now waking up. And talking to this trailblazer, cutting-edge pioneer, Col. Donn de Grand. It's an honor, sir, to have you on the show. DGP: Hey, Alex, it's good to be aboard. AJ: We are going to break here in about a minute and a-half. Give folks your bio. Tell us about Col. Donn de Grand. DGP: Well, you've got part of the name correct. It's a hyphened word, the last name is Grand-Pre. AJ: Yes, it's Col. Donn de Grand-Pre. That's how I addressed you this morning on the website. DGP: That's alright. AJ: The Portugal newspaper just says Col. Don de Grand, so.... DGP: That's okay. I've talked to these guys and they're good and they almost got it correct. I'll give you a quick bio. I entered the military in 1944 as an 18-year-old radio operator, morse code. And I was sent to Burma and China. I was attached to the detachment 101 which was OSS and I operated out of Burma. Then later on in Kunming, China, along with such notable people as a tall, skinny gal by the name of Julia Child. She has since put on a little weight and now she's doing television commercials, I guess. But I came back on active duty in 1950 as a commissioned officer, infantry airborne. And I got involved in the Korean fracas for a year-and-a-half until I was wounded. Then I was shipped home for two-years while I recuperated. And then I came back in..... AJ: I'll tell you what, Col. Donn de Grand-Pre, let's stay right there. Let's recap when we get back and go through the rest of your bio. And then launch into this amazing symposium that you put on two-years ago and why you did it in Portugal. So stay with us. His first interview in over a year and we are honored to have Col. Donn de Grand-Pre. BREAK AJ: We are talking to Col. Donn de Grand-Pre and we have a news article about an incredible symposium he put on two years ago in Portugal, covered by a front-page newspaper and magazine ' Portugal's other major papers. And a lot of key info came out ' very cutting edge. And this is his first interview since he had a stroke a little over a year ago. It's great to have the Colonel on the show. So, he got into OSS right at the end of World War II, then went into Korea for a year and a half, was wounded, with the airborne. And that's where we left off, Colonel. Please continue with your bio. DGP: Okay, Alex. Actually I went to work then for Sec. Def. Bob McNamara. He hired me as the chief arms negotiator for the Middle East. And we conducted our business there. We were known as the super salesmen in ISA, International Security Affairs. And over a ten-year period, we sold over a hundred billion dollars worth of military equipment to all comers. And then, you mentioned the interview in Portugal. I didn't actually go to Portugal but on 11 September, actually it was 12 September, I wrote to my friend Gen. Hugh Shelton, who was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs at that time. He was transited out. And he was replaced by Gen. Richard, what the heck was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs' The name escapes me. He was a four-star Air Force General. And, Myers, I guess, was the name. At any rate, I called together from 16 to 19 September, in the Pentagon area, not in the Pentagon, a group of military, civilian and general aviation pilots. And for three days, we kicked around what actually happened on 11 September. And then the investigator journalists covered that and it was reported in the Portugal news and very accurate. I have the report in front of me and it is quite involved but if you have some questions, fire away, Alex. AJ: Well, now you got these military officers together and that's the only place I ever saw it get reported on, was on here in Portugal ' it talked about the symposium. Of course, I read one of your fine books and we'll talk about that as well a little bit later on in the show and take some calls. But, what was laid out, what I saw in the four-page article, two years ago, has turned out to be very accurate. Tell us about the military officers, the pilots, the civilian pilots that were there and the conclusions that you came to in the 72-hour non-stop meeting. Please go over that for us. DGP: Okay, Alex, the group of pilots and they will remain anonymous were a wonderful mix of commercial, military and civilian pilots. At any rate, after three days, the decisions were unanimous. And I wrote my 24-page report up and submitted it to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. And that report ultimately got into the hands of the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs on 23 January, 2002. The General was U.S. Marine Corp General by the name Peter Pace. And I got a telephone call, 5 March, from one of his horse holders, who is a Colonel Air Force type. He informed me that Gen. Peter Pace had gotten the twenty-four pages and that he and his Sec. had no comment at this time but he used the old Marine Corp lingo, "Semper Fi" or Always Faithful, and we let it go at that. Later on I continued my correspondence with the Vice Chairman and most recently, I got a letter 8 November, 2003 from Peter Pace, to me, carrying on not only about the investigation but about the three books that I have written since that time. AJ: Now, Colonel, going over your report and the, I guess the committee meeting that you guys had to play out what you believe really happened. Now as more evidence has come out, it shows that that's clearly exactly what happened. Now, they are using 911 to turn this country into a total police state. I mean how do you see us turning this around? DGP: The turning around is not going to be that easy. I look at the final paragraph of this report. And here is what the final paragraph said. "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." While we know that a copy, first of all I have to back up a little. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs had 500 copies of this 24-page report made and sent out, including, to the White House. And I have to say it was including Pres. Bush. So they got a copy of the report. AJ: That was Myers at the time. DGP: That is correct. AJ: And so, he sent out 500 copies, that would mean that he believed it. DGP: I'm quite sure that he believed in it. I think that he still believes in it. You can understand the difficulties. The civilian administration, of course, won't recognize it as such. AJ: How did you find out that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs sent this out? DGP: I got a telephone call and I think the date was 5 March 2002, stating that at the time, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs had no comment but he used the Marine Corp lingo 'Semper Fi', Semper Fidelity 'always faithful'. And that triggered in me further memos and I traded memos with Gen. Peter Pace and Dick Myers and they continued on until November of last year. AJ: Well that had to be upsetting to Mr. Rumsfeld to have all these, hundreds of your reports flying around the Pentagon. DGP: (laughs) Yeah, you see there's a definite cleavage between the military of the Pentagon and the civilian hierarchy - and never the twain shall meet. AJ: Well, there was an article right after 'that you talk about' in mid-2002 in the Washington Times saying the morale in the Pentagon had never been lower. And you would think it would be high right after 911 and getting together to fight the enemy. But it said that the officers didn't believe in the "mission" or in the intelligence. DGP: That is correct. That came out of the Washington Times and I can verify that from Col. Dick Schultz, who is a friend of mine in the Joint Chiefs. Morale was not only low but he said some of the troops are ready to mutiny. If it wasn't for the fact that the government, the civilian hierarchy, has control over retirements, they would probably be blood in the streets by now. AJ: There was also an article where they panicked in the Washington Times, it was also in the Washington Post, they panicked and flew the officers on jets to luxury vacations and had these focus groups. It even talked about a possible mutiny. People were just totally distraught. What would make them become distraught overnight in the Pentagon? DGP: It wasn't an overnight thing. You see, as I outline in book 1, and I carry that on in book 2, as well as book 3, we were on the verge of a military coup d'etat. And this was long in the planning and even after the 78 days of bombing Kosovo, it became critical. And we were close to a coup d'etat at that time. In my survey of the reports and the pilots who worked with that, a coup was a possibility. In fact, a coup d'etat was pulled on the morning of September 11th. Only it was an administrative or what we call a cold coup d'etat. AJ: Or reverse coup d'etat. DGP: Yes, in fact.... AJ: A counter revolutionary junta. DGP: Well that is correct. And as we delved into that, we found that the culprits, including Rumsfeld, were part of a neocon group that had been planning this thing for literally years prior to September 11th. AJ: Absolutely, Colonel, it's just amazing picking your brain. We are going to break here. In talking to your this morning, I was proud to know that you've been a listener to this show for a while. DGP: Well, I've had a single side band short wave set for about 4 years and I listened variously to Alex Jones, particularly up until about 2-years ago, and as a result of the events of September 11th, I did have a stoke. I'm fully recovered. As I told Alex, I went riding my favorite quarter horse this morning. So I'm back and ready for anything. AJ: Well that's wonderful Colonel. Okay, we'll break and come back with the Colonel and get into all of this ' and later get to your calls, too. So please, stay with us. BREAK AJ: We'll take some of your calls for Col. Donn de Grand-Pre coming up in the next segment. He's done a lot of great work. I've only read one of his books. Donn, tell us about some of your books, what they cover and how folks can get a copy. DGP: Okay, I've got three books out, Alex, under the title, "Barbarians Inside the Gates." Book 1 was "The Serpent's Sting," Book 2 is "The Viper's Venom," Book 3 which just came out is "The Rattler's Revenge." And I'd like to quote from Book 2, which came out October of 2002. There is a very important paragraph there. It says, "The trigger for the 911 activity was the imminent and unstoppable world-wide financial collapse which can only be prevented temporarily by a major war, perhaps to become known as World War III. To bring it off one more time, martial law will probably be imposed in the United States." AJ: And now we've seen Gen. Eberhart say that that's the next step. Tommy Franks said that's the next step. Are those now chilling statements? DGP: Yes, they are. This next step will be preceded by what I write up in book 1 ' "The Serpent's Sting." I wrote of a coming coup d'etat. And this was written in the year 2000. And sure as blazes, it's coming. And it will be preceded by these kinds of things as enunciated by Tommy Franks, among others. So we are in a world of hurt, Alex. AJ: Now, by a coup d'etat, you mean another intensification of a reverse coup d'etat to keep the people from fighting against the New World Order or do you mean the type that Bill Clinton successfully stopped in his administration? DGP: Well, I'm talking about the administrative coup d'etat that came off September 11th. AJ: You're talking about an intensification of the elite in a coup d'etat against America. DGP: That is correct. AJ: Well, I mean, it's ongoing. They are federalizing everything, they are militarizing everything, they're engaging in the classic takeover, are they not? DGP: Yes, there are. And from this, Alex, and I bring this out very clearly in book 3, the only way we can stop it is with the classic counter-coup d'etat where the military steps in. And under the aegis of the military itself, disengaging or disemboweling the civilian hierarchy and taking over and re-running or re-organizing the federal government. AJ: Now the problem is they've got so many CFR minions in the Pentagon. We know that Clinton had some officers terminated and, in their office, shot multiple times and the rest of it. We know that that happened but the question is how many of the high level officers are on the globalist team? DGP: I can only say several of the highest level are members now of the Council on Foreign Relations. The important thing to consider is how many of them are sincere in their beliefs as enunciated by the CFR. I believe there are several sleepers and I believe I know some of them personally who are three and four-star generals. They are members of the CFR but "their heart belongs to Jesus," if I can use that expression because they are true Semper Fidelity people. Some of them happen to be Marines. And I'm counting on them to do the right thing. And I bring this out in book 3. AJ: Absolutely and we'll tell people how they can get those books. I mean I want to carry them but Colonel, your experience in the military, your experience in the intelligence agencies, there's also the danger though obviously in any military movement of that nature that it could be self-serving as well, and set up its own form of wickedness. DGP: Yes, that's plausible, that's correct. I don't believe it will happen in exactly that fashion. And the thing about a coup d'etat and a counter-coup d'etat is you never know when it's going to happen. You never know exactly who is involved. This is a plus for any planners of a counter-coup d'etat. AJ: Well, this is certainly dividing the wheat from the chaff. How many people, and we'll get the answer to the question when we get back from your feelers in the Pentagon, how many people in there now know that an element of the global system, a crime syndicate, carried out 91, I mean, only an idiot would know, would think they didn't but the point is, this has got to be accelerating the division. And I want to get your take on the pulse of that and we'll take calls when we get back. Stay with us. BREAK AJ: We are talking to Col. Donn de Grand-Pre and he worked in many of the levels of the U.S. military and has put out some really important information. Two years ago, he put out a report in a meeting in a 72-hour deliberation, a group of military and civilian U.S. pilots under the chairmanship of Col. Donn de Grand-Pre. 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 the aircraft. And they get into how the military industrial complex clearly, that is elements of it, were in control of this. Colonel, we are going to go to some calls here in a minutes after you cover some other issues with us. But, understand this, my question of what percentage of the officers, period, in the military do you think have finally woken up to the true magnitude of what's going on? DGP: Well, I'm in personal contact at least on a weekly basis with the Joint Chiefs and other select people. My computation is that 70% of us are with us. That's the higher ranking military, field grade officers, etc. and even the first three grades of the enlisted ' 70% are with us. AJ: Well, they've had questionnaires, you know, a decade ago, will you fire on U.S. citizens under UN control if the president says so ' and, you know, 74% say no to that. Okay, then how are the globalists getting away with this? DGP: Sheer [Garbled] bluff and we can thank many of the neocons who are now in power in the Defense Dept. particularly. They get away with it because they try it out and see if anybody will salute the flag and that's the way it goes. AJ: So basically, they wrap their un-American agenda in a flag and the general public buys it so the military has to sit there and take it. DGP: They do, yes, and I think those days are coming to an end. The military ain't going to take it any longer. AJ: How did the military ever get convinced to use depleted uranium in areas where there is going to be troops? DGP: To put what Alex? AJ: Well, yeah, the military gets treated like dog meat. You've got the depleted uranium, Colonel, where they spray the depleted uranium everywhere where the troops breathe it at 1900 times safe levels. How can the Pentagon put up with that? DGP: Well, the DU rounds are over-played, first of all. They aren't that potent and secondarily, we must consider that weapons of mass destruction have already been used by some of the opposition in the period February of 1991. Weapons of mass destruction, including low-yield nuclear weapons. AJ: Okay, can you break that down for us? DGP: Well, I break it down in the time frame that we had satellite images of rounds or missiles being fired from the Negev desert toward Baghdad. That's 600 miles distance. And six or eight of the rounds came in. That was February of 1991. AJ: Are you saying that the Israelis used miniaturized nuclear weapons? DGP: Yes sir. That's what I'm saying, in plain English. AJ: Well I remember, I know they bragged that they had a lot of really sophisticated miniaturized nuclear weapons, of the little mini-frogs, or whatever. But and I know there were these giant mushroom clouds on the news. They'd say, "Oh, that's not a nuke. That's just a weapons depot." But you are saying that it is common knowledge at the Pentagon that Israel was firing nuclear weapons at Iraq? DGP: That is correct. AJ: Oh, so that's where all this high-level radiation is emanating from? DGP: That is correct. And I have verification of that. I think it's in book 2. And I think it will stand up in most scrutiny. AJ: Well, I know your work on September 11th certainly has. Do you think the globalists are going to have the will to carry out another massive attack here in the U.S. to try to get control back over the population and get their agenda back on track? Or do you think they've calculated, computed as you said, that that will blow up in their face because so many people now know who the real terrorists are? DGP: That's a two-prong question, Alex. I think it deserves a studied answer. The only thing I can say is I'm not sure how it will turn out. But it is very dangerous. AJ: From watching the globalists, I think they had a plan, they are still following a plan but I think they are shook-up. I think, from the evidence, in fact I know from the evidence, that a lot of things they planned haven't gone according to schedule and so they don't know what to do right now. DGP: This is correct. I think it's personified in the persona of the Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. They almost got him in Baghdad when they fired the salvo, one night, of weaponry and they scared Paul Wolfowitz off. He's ready to resign or get the hell out. AJ: You think that was U.S. forces doing that? DGP: I believe it. It was very well planned again and .. AJ: Yeah, only U.S. forces would know that he would be there. Yeah. DGP: That is correct. And the precision of those weapons that came into the hotel. There were eleven rounds in all and I can speak from authenticity that they scared the hell out of Paul Wolfowitz. And probably, C. Paul Bremer, or whatever his name is. AJ: Why does the Pentagon hate Wolfowitz? DGP: Wolfowitz has been in this game since 1974. I was still on active duty when I met him in 1974 and he was coming on strong even then. And along with him, Richard Perle and a couple of the others who are now known as neoconservatives. AJ: Now Perle had the nickname as "The Crazy" and "The Prince of Darkness". Is that correct? DGP: That is correct. AJ: Why was he known as "The Prince of Darkness"? DGP: I can't answer that directly. He was a snake to begin with but nothing was ever straight forward as far as Richard Perle was concerned. I introduced book 3 two quotes stating that Richard Perle is a madman. And it goes on from there. AJ: Well he is a madman. He was at a press dinner last year and, again, giggling and laughing about how we are going to have World War III, we are going to nuke everyone, ha, ha, ha. And then he goes, "Isn't that impressive" and started grabbing on some women. I mean, he's a complete lunatic. DGP: That is correct. Richard Perle's days are numbered. I don't know if he realizes it but so many of these so-called neocons, you'll notice now, that they are very quiet indeed. They are not really surfacing anymore, including Dick Cheney. AJ: Yeah, why is Dick Cheney been literally hiding under a bunker? DGP: He's been hiding under a bunker most of the time since September 11th. AJ: And, by the way, it has come out that he took control of NORAD and was saying something in the U.S. ultra-secret bunkers, that he was on loud-speakers ordering people to follow his orders. He had to physically take control of something, from my sources, it was the fact that they were going to go ahead and shoot the aircraft down. That's what I've got from lawyers who represent military officers. We know he was in control through even during the hijackings, the supposed hijackings. What do you know about that? DGP: Well, not too much really. I can't speak to that because it's hypothetical and what I try to stick to are the cold hard facts. AJ: Well, Colonel, we know he did take control of the bunkers. I just don't know what he said, according to ABC News but according to my sources which have been very accurate, he was ordering a stand down. DGP: Yes, I can believe it but again, it's supposition and I still haven't been able to figure out what makes Dick Cheney tick. AJ: So, well then why is he hiding in a bunker? Why is he at the Naval Observatory in a bunker most of the time? DGP: I think that that is what he considers to be the safest place at the moment. He's basically a coward and this too will come out. I feel that Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, both of them, their days are numbered. AJ: Okay, so politically more and more corruption coming out, more and more of their criminal activities coming out, serious issues. Colonel, how do folks get your books, the three-part series? DGP: Okay, the book is easy to come by. My incomparable daughter Doneva is the publisher of these books and they are turning out top-grade, library quality books. Books 1, 2, and 3 ' "Barbarians Inside the Gates." They can be obtained by writing to post office box 1124, Madison, Virginia 22727. And send it in care of Grand-Pre Publishing, Ltd. And for the price of $30, you can get book 1. $30 again is book 2. And then for book 3 that just came out and it's a big book, 608 pages, we've had to up the price to $45. AJ: Alright, these are thick books, jam-packed and the address is PO 1124, Madison, Virginia. And that zip code again' DGP: 22727. AJ: Alright and does that $30 include the shipping? DGP: No, it really doesn't. For the books and we send them all out priority special handling, that's runs $3.85 a book. AJ: Okay, got you. Alright we'll give that out again a little bit later. So let's go ahead and take some calls. [SKIPPED SEGMENT] AJ: All right, 8 minutes, 30 seconds into this third hour. Again I'm Alex Jones, your host. We'll have our guest with us for another twenty-five minutes or so, then I'm going to get into this big stack of news that we have not detailed yet. Believe me it's all very important. Our guest is Col. Donn de Grand-Pre. Honored to have him on the show. He's the author of a three-part series of books, "Barbarians Inside the Gates." And real quick, John in New York, you had a question about 9/11. John: It's not a question. I want to make a comment. I was in the Air Force. My career field was radar operations and I was assigned to the Air Defense Command. The airliners turned around at Erie, Pennsylvania and were off-course for approximately one-hour, at the wrong altitude, at the wrong speed, without radio contact and it is absolutely insane for anybody to believe that could have happened unless people were told to stand down. AJ: Well, Payne Stewart, in 18 minutes had five F-16s around him in the middle of no where. In the most sensitive air corridor in the world, the eastern coast there, D.C./ New York, with these four planes all over the map. And they know there's been hijackings and Dick Cheney's in control. Everything's standing down and .... John: The fighters that were stationed in Virginia, just across the border from Washington, D.C., could have been flying at bust speed, which is max speed, they could have intercepted those planes in 15 minutes and saved all that tragedy. And the second airplane was 15 minutes behind the first airplane. So to think they didn't do anything about the second one makes it even more ludicrous. So, terrific guest; terrific show. Thanks for taking my call. AJ: All right, and again, we don't even do this justice to focus on one area. I mean we've got all the public officials being told not to go to New York, the insider trading by the CIA, the Bushes protecting the bin Ladens. Colonel, do you want to comment on that? DGP: Well, what I was trying to get through here, John has done a beautiful job of laying it all out here on 911. What I want to carry away is that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs himself has agreed, there were no hijackers. There were no cell phone calls. Everybody aboard that aircraft, pilots and crew, were unconscious within 8 to 18 minutes after take-off. And you can take it from there. I've got it covered in books 2 and 3, what actually happened. AJ: So, they're knocked out and then the remote control takes place and the rest is history. DGP: Yeah, there was remote control and .. yes. AJ: By the way, people don't believe they have that. Kennedy's oldest son, JFK's big brother, died in a chase plane [sic] with remote controlling in a bomber loaded with explosives as a drone in 1944. [Operation APHRODITE - Joe Kennedy Jr. was piloting a remote-controlled B-24 Liberator bomber loaded with 20,000 pounds of TNT, to use as a bunker-buster Kamikaze bomb. He and his copilot were scheduled to bail out over England, with a pilot in a chase plane to guide the smart-bomb to its NAZI target in France. However, Kennedy's B-24 exploded over England before he could bail out, according to the HistoryChannel.com - "Dead Mens' Tales". The explosion was witnessed by the son of president FDR, who was flying as a photographr in one of the squadron of chase planes.] DGP: That is correct. AJ: So this very old technology, folks. And for people that are in total denial, it's ridiculous. Let's go ahead and talk to Wayne in Virginia. Wayne, thanks for holding, go ahead. Wayne: Yes sir, thank you. I have a two-part question. The first part is Colonel..ah. AJ: Donn de Grand-Pre Wayne: de Grand-Pre. I'm sorry sir, I stumbled over your name. Could you play the instructor with us ground-pounders for a little while and tell us why, from an airmanship point of view, the maneuvers the aircraft performed were just inexplicable and bordering on the impossible from a pilot's point of view? DGP: Yes, let me get that real quick for Wayne from Virginia. These planes were being piloted by remote control, probably an AWACs aircraft taking over that airplane or airplanes or drones, unmanned drones. And flying them at 5 and 8 G-force that no pilot could withstand. So, in short, and if you read books 2 and 3, you will discover how and why this came about. Wayne: The second part of my question is after 911, our Congressman from down here, Randy Forbes spoke at a Veterans' Foreign Wars Hall about how close he was to the Bush and Rumsfeld cabal and how before 911 he had a briefing at the White House where they were told they were expecting something big from Afghanistan. And he also in his discussion, there were about 200 or 300 people there, it is recorded on film. And my notes are very clear on this. He also said they were following other aircraft out over the ocean. Do you have any knowledge of that? That is something that I have not heard discussed at all about 911. DGP: No, but this comes under speculation now. And I'm telling you that we are knowledgeably speculating. Those aircraft carrying crew and passengers went over the Atlantic and that was all she wrote. [Crosstalk] AJ: Yeah, you remote control the original planes out, then your loaded up drones attack. And the biggest and oldest newspaper in Spain just came out, three weeks ago, and they looked at the bottom of one of those jets and there's some type of giant belly attachment. It's clearly a modified aircraft. Wayne: Can I ask one final question? AJ: Yes. Wayne: That your line of discussion here, the Colonel in the past few minutes, has just opened up. You said earlier that you expected when push comes to shove that this 70% of general and field grade officers are going to say that's it. Well the enterprise that we are discussing here of taking regularly scheduled civilian airlines out and ditching them in the ocean and putting in their places aerial bombs.... AJ: Yeah, that is push coming to shove. Wayne: That is it. Why aren't these people coming forward now' AJ: Let me say this. We know because, folks I don't want to give too much detail out. I've talked to lawyers. I've talked to them. We know hundreds of high level officers have leaked everything we are now learning about today. So, I think that this caught a lot of people unawares. Colonel, do you want to comment on that? DGP: Well, the only thing I can say is that let's consider that second aircraft that hit the World Trade Center. It did have a control device on the belly of the 757. That aircraft was unmanned and went in and blew up as a diversion. And something else happened. This was a sideshow. AJ: I understand but going back to, we know they had bombs in the buildings, it's now admitted, but going back to what the caller said, your saying these elements in the military when push came to shove are going to stand up. Well, I would say that 911 was the globalists pushing. So, where's the shove? That's his question. DGP: Well this will come. It's going to be in the form of a counter-coup d'tat. You understand that a coup d'tat was pulled on September 11th by the civilian hierarchy. [crosstalk] Say again? Wayne: God grant that it would come soon. DGP: Well, we, we, yes it probably will. Wayne: They are talking about going into Syria now. DGP: Don't believe it. There is a new ballgame there and I can't go into it right now. But Syria is going to be something else entirely involving NATO forces. And I can't go into that much right now. AJ: Okay, thanks for the call, Wayne. Let's talk to Diane in South Carolina. Diane, go ahead. Diane: Hi, before I asked my question. Please ask Don de Grand-Pre, Sir, to give us a phone number so we can contact him. And I have read the first book. It is awesome. It's like reading history and just watching everything unfold. AJ: Yeah, he wrote about it in 2000 and then it happens a year later. Diane: So, here's my question. On Thursday of last week in the Courier in South Carolina, they had a small article on the Russians who are now doing this World War III practice. AJ: Yeah, the Russians are doing nuclear attack drills on us ' our little buddies, you know. Diane: Okay, they had in there about a maneuverable nuclear-tipped weapon for offensive purposes..... AJ: Yeah, they say they've got a missile that nothing can stop... Diane: It's an airplane that goes five times the speed of sound. This was in the paper. AJ: Well, they've had that for a while. You want to comment on that? Diane: And my question is how is the foreign military in the United States vs. our military going to respond? And it looks like Russia is making some moves now. What do you think about Russia? AJ: Yeah Colonel, that's a good question. I have all the articles, I have the documents they really are trying to integrate foreign and East German, Czech Republic, others into our military. How is that going? DGP: It's probably going. I can't give you detail. You are bordering on certain elements that I can't talk about. But we have to consider the Russian aspect of these weapons as being in essence propaganda. We have the same type of unmanned aircraft drones, etc. that will fly 5 times the speed of sound. AJ: They will do a lot more than that. DGP: Yeah, but Diane let's not worry too much about the Russians. Diane: Well, is there a non-gravitational type airplane or something? AJ: No, they've got regular propulsion air. .. look, look Ma'am, they claim the SR 71 Blackbird in flight in '55, in service in '59, was the fastest jet in the world. It is not and it cruises at mach 3. Okay, I mean they got jets that will just..... Diane: I know we are way behind what they are telling us. What I'm thinking.... AJ: Do you want to comment on that? Diane: And ask him to give out his number for us, too. DGP: Let me give you a home phone where you can contact me at Grand Pre Publishing Ltd. at 540-547-2996. And that's my home phone. It's a private phone and you can call me anytime. AJ: Okay, now we know that you had a stroke a few years ago worrying about this so much. So folks, don't bug him too much. Hey, I feel like I'm going to have one everyday worrying about this. DGP: I can handle just about anything including this 15-year old gelding that I was riding this morning. AJ: Okay, well that's good sir. We'll be right back. We'll take more calls. BREAK AJ: All right folks. Here's the deal, we are going to take 5 more calls for our guest. Then let our guest go. I really appreciate him coming on. Then I'm going to cover a bunch of news that we haven't really detailed yet. It's very, very important and recap some top stories as well. Diane had asked your phone number and if you want to give it out, that's fine. Folks, if you want to talk to the Colonel, it's 540-547-2996. And before he leaves us in the next segment, we'll give you the mailing address again to get the books. Let's talk to John in Tennessee. John, you are on the air, go ahead. John Lee, Knoxville, Tennessee: Colonel, did a cruise missile hit the Pentagon, or a Global Hawk, or a drone business jet? DGP: You are talking about what hit the Pentagon, right John? It was a cruise missile. It could have been a Global Hawk. It was not a commercial aircraft. AJ: That's what the eye-witnesses said and the evidence shows. And do people realize that this was staged at the Pentagon? I mean obviously it's in an area that's under renovation and then all this happens. Do people at the Pentagon? are they still buying the official story, Colonel? DGP: Well, I can't speak for the rest of them but I'm certainly not buying that. And I think I've got the full story in book 3. And that's it. It was a diversionary hit for strategic reasons and it didn't matter whether it was a pilotless drone or a Global Hawk missile. It wasn't a commercial aircraft. AJ: It's the most surveilled area in the world but no video of it. Witnesses said they saw a small aircraft. DGP: No, they did not. We have [garbled] a video that purports to show a firing of a launch probably from a Global Hawk or an unmanned aircraft missile but it certainly wasn't a commercial aircraft. John Lee: And was 100 Years of Killer Robot Jetplanes - USAF Unmanned Vehicles Museum - Wright Patterson AFB, Ohio DGP: No, that was hit at 10:00 hours. It was taken out by the North Dakota Air Guard. I know the pilot who fired those two missiles to take down 93. John Lee: Was it shot down because the airline pilots actually regained control of the hijacked auto-pilot, or was that to replace the unmanned drone that was shot down? DGP: No, it was the aircraft, you see, had totally unconscious people on board. There were no hijackers. At 9:35, the Happy Hooligans, the Air Guard flying the F-16s were ordered to take that plane out. And they took it out from 9:35 to 10:00. John Lee: Were there any refueling jets involved in that operation? AJ: Hold on a second, John. The question is why would they deviate from the plan of flying it into the Capitol? Why did the globalists decide to go ahead and shoot the plane down? DGP: There had been an adjustment to the controls, probably by an AWACs aircraft flying overhead, again, remote control. And it was on a course for either the Capitol or the White House. And at this stage, you don't know. The Happy Hooligans came in and took care of it. AJ: Do you think they were not following orders? DGP: Who, the Happy Hooligans? AJ: Well, yeah, you've got Cheney running around, we've got the stand down taking place. DGP: Well, this is correct, but you see the Adj. General of the State of North Dakota gave the command to take it out. And, by God, they took it out. And I've got the full story in the book. AJ: That's a good thing they did that. You said you talked to the pilot. Think about this folks. Imagine what Bush would have gotten if he would have had that plane fly into the Capitol? Imagine the police state we would be in right now. DGP: Yes, yes, yes, indeed. AJ: And so you had to have the diversionary blast at the Pentagon so no one would get suspicious and think it was a military coup. DGP: Perhaps, perhaps. AJ: John, does that answer your question? John Lee: Ware there any refueling tankers used by the North Dakota Air Guard and what tanker wing was used? DGP: I don't know about the aircraft itself. I don't know about refueling. They came off base in Langley and it was just a few minutes out from Langley to the intercept over Pennsylvania. It was just a matter of minutes. AJ: Colonel, how did you get in touch with the pilot who shot the plane down? DGP: It turned out to be an old friend of mine from the Air National Guard and this is my home state of North Dakota. And I attended the ceremony in North Dakota and watched the Adj. General [garbled] the pilot being decorated a year later for this activity that happened on 911 with Flight 93. BREAK AJ: Welcome back. We are about to go back to the Colonel and his amazing revelation of the North Dakota National Guard that had been moved to Langley Virginia a few months before 911. And then went in there and shot down that Flight 93 over Pennsylvania. He says he's talked to the pilot. His info checks out. I've been researching what he's been doing for years. Before we go back to our guest and 4 final calls from Scott and June and Warren and Greg, and we'll go to you quick too, because we've got a bunch of news we need to get to. [Skipped segment] Colonel, before we take these four final calls, go over that a little bit slower for folks. That's a big deal. You talked to the pilot, a friend of yours, who shot down Flight 93 that was going for the Capitol or the White House. And go over that for folks. DGP: Okay, quick rundown. They were out of Hector Field, Fargo, North Dakota. A bunch, this 119 Fighter Group and they are called the Happy Hooligans. They are probably the best interceptors that we have in the country. They were moved to Langley Air Force Base from Hector Field down to Southern Virginia. And when the klaxon horn went off at 9:35, those two pilots put down their coffee and shot into their aircraft and took off. They didn't know where they were going initially but by 10:00 hours, they had rendezvoused over Southern Pennsylvania. That's about 250 miles in just a matter of minutes and engaged 93 with two side-winder missiles. And they accomplished their objective. Now Hector Field, I use to fly out of Hector Field some time ago. I know most of those pilots. I could name names. I know the National Guard Adj. General. And they were decorated about a year later and I have the full write up of that story in my book. AJ: Yeah and it's just ignored by the media. I have that article, too. And later, well okay, it was a missile, well there wasn't "Let's Roll." It's all made-up theatre for the public and we buy it like a bunch of saps. DGP: That is correct. AJ: It's incredible. Let's go ahead and talk to Scott in Florida. Scott, go ahead. Scott: Hi, how you doing? AJ: Fine. Scott: Earlier in the show, you mentioned that both Cheney and Wolfowitz might be in some trouble. I was wondering if they'd been serving the real rulers of the world, the thirteen families or whatever they are, and been dutifully pushing the agenda for world government.... AJ: Yeah, obviously they are just minions, [crosstalk] policy wonk puppets, so you're saying..... Scott: If they've been doing a good job for them, why are they in danger vs. a Powell or Rice or Bush, or all they all in danger? AJ: Or in danger of Rockefeller? Scott: Right. DGP: Cheney is closest to the action. He was probably most involved in all of the details of September 11th and he'll be one of the first to fall. So I predict, I predict that Cheney will be out of here inside of, well prior to the election. Scott: Is that because he knows exactly what happened or because ... DGP: Yes, he knows exactly what happened. Scott: You have to eliminate all those people. DGP: Several, yes. AJ: Now, again... Scott: Wouldn't that serve as a warning to anybody who would serve them in the future? DGP: Perhaps but these guys can only understand one ingredient and that is force. And that's why it has to emanate from the military. And military force in the persona of military tribunals will takeover. And Cheney, as I reiterate, is toast. AJ: But they are the ones who are creating the tribunals. I will say this. Gen. Rick Bacchus, over a year ago, Rhode Island native, the head of Gitmo, Guantanamo Bay, he resigned and said, "I'm not going to torture innocent people." Now that hardly got any press. We have two-star generals quitting. We have a lot of people not going along with this already. DGP: And there will be a lot more, Alex. AJ: Pardon me? DGP: There will be a lot more people either resigning or retiring. And yet it's going to come out and there will be military tribunals. Former German Defense Minister Confirms CIA Involvement in 9/11 Alex Jones Interviews Andreas Von Buelow INFOWARS.COM Please understand that this is a transcript made directly from a live radio interview. It may not conform to exeplary standards of grammar. Mr. Von Buelow's first language is German. Alex Jones: All right my friends. We are already into the third and final hour of this global transmission against tyranny. And, in the last hour we had Hutton Gibson, expert on the New World Order and of course father of Mel Gibson, on talking about the different key issues. In this hour, we are joined by Andreas von Buelow and he was the federal Minister of Defense, or the equivalent of our Secretary of Defense, been in the German government since the 70s. And up until just a few years ago he was also the Minister of Technology and he has written a book that according to Reuters is the best seller in Germany that translates into '9-11 and the CIA.' And he's not the only German minister who has said we are looking at world fascism here and a powerful military industrial complex institution engineering terror attacks to scare us into submission. And, Andre von Bulow, err Andreas von Bulow, we are so honored to have a man of your stature and obvious intelligence and your courage on this show. Thank you for joining us. Andreas von Bulow: Hello and it's wonderful speaking, yes. AJ: Uh, we're going to break here in a few minutes and come back in a longer segment but for those who just joined us, tell us a little bit more about yourself and your book please. AvB: Well I...I have spent over twenty-five years in politics and now I am out. And in the end I was Minister of Technology before I was Secretary of Defense. Then I had to deal in a commission on East-West transactions about the secret service of East Germany. And this was very interesting inside story because of the Western side doing deals violating the laws in Eastern Eur, err, East Germany, European Community and the United States. It was always two parts dealing with East and West and this bought me a lot of insights in the secret service business. AJ: And in fact I remember reading about the huge investigations you did that was massive international headlines concerning the Stasi and how different governments had actually been working with these people. If you would like you are of course welcome to get into that as well. Again folks, the equivalent secretary of defense, minister of defense of Germany, and of course technology, the head of that. Just absolutely amazing. Your best selling book, and I wish there was an English translation because I would certainly buy one. My wife does read German. But please, tell us about your book. AvB: Well I was writing another book and then 9 11 happened. And it was strange to me watching- we all were horrified what was going on and said well that's impossible, how could a crew of people manage do such horrible things? At the first hours, we didn't know who was it, then within hours it came out that probably Usama bin Laden and Al Qaeda was behind it. And then within two or three days these 19 people came out. And my objection was- my looking at it- to whom does it bring good? And I found out that it is rather damaging to the Islamic world and perhaps it might be not only be a terrorist attack but perhaps it might be a covert operation. I watched the scenery, what was going on, what the American government- AJ: Minister, minister, we've got to break; we'll be back in three minutes. Absolutely, we'll go into this in great detail. We are honored to have you. We're talking to Andreas von Bulow. We'll be back. (Fade to bumper music) (Commercial Break) AJ: That's right my friends it's eight minutes ten seconds into this 3rd hour of global transmission. I am so honored to have on Andreas von Bulow former German defense minister, head of their defense department and of course until just a few years ago, head of their technology system which is, that is a very high level post, just as high level as defense minister there in Deutschland. And he's written a best selling book and I've read some quotes out of it that have been translated into English. And the title translated is '911 and the CIA.' And he lays out the evidence of the military-industrial complex carrying out the attacks. Also we have lined up Michael Micher. And he of course was the English environmental minister who resigned over Tony Blair's fraud. He has written articles saying that if they didn't carry it out, they certainly funded and allowed them to take place. So, if you've got a brain, it's clear, and Mr. von Bulow, very intelligent individual has gone over this. So, sir, you've said that on the day of the event you began to look at it, you began to research it. And, from your specific expertise in intelligence and military and technology, you know heading up entire sectors of the world's third largest economy. Please discuss for us your research and how you wrote the book and what really happened on 9 11. AvB: Err, 9 11, I just watched the scenery. And I said there must have- gone something very [wrong]. I watched the TV for example and in the same minute that the TV showed the planes driving into the World Trade Center, you found these Palestinians dancing and laughing. And a few days later one could find out that this was fake. It was made by a TV crew of the defense ministry in Israel and they gave candies to the people and they laughed about it. And, nobody told it. And the question for me was who brought this TV stuff right in time into the national networks like CNN and CBS and so on and so on. And then we look for the, the story came out that this had been done by bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda and these 19 people of Muslim background, which did this. And you could watch the Persian journalist, and nobody showed up. Not one Arabic name was showing up there. And then one is interested to see video because all these 19 passengers must have passed the video, a lot of video cameras in Dallas, and New York, and Logan in Boston, and Portland in the North. You don't get this stuff. And then we're looking for the black boxes and we don't get them. And the story how these, these World Trade Center buildings broke down, they were constructed against an approach by airplanes. And, the firemen of New York, they were able to come to the floor where the fires were burning, and they said, the fire commander said he needed two teams, small, to fight these fires and then it's finished. So the heat, it is impossible that the heat was as high as it has been written in the papers and in all the media. AJ: And then, and then the feds declared that all firefighter tapes malfunctioned, turns out that wasn't true; we've got copies of them. And it did say that the firefighters said the fires were out or almost out. There is video of people standing in the holes of the buildings with no fire around them. And we're going to go over the evidence that's in your book, sir, and why you came to these educated conclusions. AvB: Yeah. AJ: But, first I want to ask you: have you heard the new developments, the owner of the World Trade Center slipped up on TV and said that they blew Building Seven up. The forty-seven story building that wasn't even hit by an aircraft. This just broke two weeks ago, have you heard this? AvB: Sure, I have heard this. I follow the whole scenery. Normally, it's coming out in Germany, but it's coming out in your country. It's a fascinating background to, to do research via Internet because all this stuff is broadly spread over the Internet. So it's very easy to follow, but in the main media you don't get to hear about this. AJ: Well tell you what, later this hour, it's only three minutes of audio clips, we will air from the PBS documentary 'America Rebuilding,' where they admit they blew up WTC 7. Now, that's important because they said that building fell from fire even though it wasn't hit by a plane. And now, he slips up and says we decided to demolish it on 9-11, but then the mainstream media just ignores that. This is a public admission, sir. AvB: Yeah, yeah especially that the CIA headquarters in New York was in, was within this building. I think the- how do you call it- the emergency center for the governor, the major, err, mayor was- AJ: Mayor and governor. AvB: -mayor was in this building. So, it was not hit by a plane, and the fire was very low. And the surrounding steel constructions were left over and didn't collapse. But, the Building 7 collapsed in late afternoon at 5 o' clock I think. AJ: Well, from our internal sources, they were running the attacks sir, out of the building and so conveniently got rid of the evidence in one fell swoop. AvB: This is one theory, it might be. It's convincing but one has to get the whole proof. But the problem is that the elements for proof are destroyed. AJ: Also- AvB: You will find them in Japanese cars and in ships of the American Navy. AJ: Also, sir, we have NORAD standing down for an hour and twenty five minutes but when we had the golfer Payne Stewart went off course for fifteen minutes, he was surrounded in eighteen minutes by five F-16s so why did NORAD stand down? AvB: Well, this is a big question because it happened in 2001 more than 60 times. That, fighter[s] went up to clear what has been done to airplanes that showed some irregularities. At 9 11, four planes for two hours were able to drive around, fly around even one hour in the direction going toward the west and then turn around and then comeback. The military air force was not able to interdict them. It's [un]imaginable. And the whole story is totally unclear what happened between the Federal Aviation Agency (Administration) and NORAD. AJ: Absolutely, now I don't know if you've seen the associated press but the CIA was running a drill 15 miles from the World Trade Center that day of flying jets into buildings in New York and DC. My internal sources inside the Pentagon, the lawyers who represent them have said on this show that they were told to stand down because it was quote 'just a drill.' That's how you get the good military to stand down; you tell them it's just a drill. And, that drill was going on at 830 in the morning. Is that not obvious, sir? AvB: It's quite obvious, yeah. It's quite, it's so strange and the most strange thing for me is that after two years you don't have a white book which is documenting everything. If you are looking for the timetable for example you have to make a medium between two or three or five newspapers and radio and TV announcements. So everything is unclear. On the other hand, the American government is running as the call it a world war against possibly sixty nations without really showing the background of 9/11. It's- for me, it's impossible. AJ: Now by that they admit that nine of the nineteen hijackers, the BBC says seven but it's nine, are still alive. Bin Laden has not been convicted, bin Laden is known CIA, you've got [George H. W.] Bush meeting with the head bin Laden that morning in DC at the Ritz Carleton, you've got the General of Pakistan, the head of their intelligence, meeting with the House and Senate chairs of the intelligence committee at 8:30 that morning, his second trip in his life to the United States. You've got the FBI paying for the houses, the cars, the credit cards of the supposed hijackers. I mean, sir, you start- you've got public officials, Mayor Willie Brown, Joint Chiefs of Staff told not to fly to New York that day. That's all admitted; what do you say to that? AvB: Well, it's all admitted. So for me, since the official version- it's not credible at all, it's totally incredible. The second solution for me is a covert operation. And this is a way to influence, to brainwash the American people into long, long, ongoing conflict with the Muslim world and all that you get to, for example the oil companies, the last oil reserves which we need for the next decades before the oil age is going out. And probably behind this is a geopolitical thinking that finally China has to be taken out. China is too big and you have to be able to- this is put down in the New American Century, which has been written by a lot of people who are now in government like Cheney, like Rumsfeld and others. AJ: And now, sir, we've got to break. We're going to get into the Project for a New American Century and Operation Northwoods. Were you aware of a US government plan to carry out 9 11 style attacks? AvB: You mean, Northwoods? AJ: Yes, sir. AvB: Yeah sure I know. AJ: Is that not a key piece of evidence? AvB: Well, this is a key piece, a key piece of evidence of the thinking of probably the military in dialogue with politics. Probably, I think Kennedy decided not to do it but I think it was, it was all of the- AJ: Tell you what, stay there. We've got to break; we'll be right back folks. (Fade to music) (Commercial Break) AJ: All right my friends, I'm Alex Jones your host. For the rest of the hour we are honored to have Andreas von Bulow, former Defense Secretary and former head of technology, Department of Technology in Germany. And he's just gotten out of government a few years ago and he's just written a best selling book '9 11 and the CIA' and we have info on that at Infowars.com and PrisonPlanet.com. We will also be posting this interview on the Website in the next few days as well. There are so many facets to this- Mr. von Bulow, continuing with you waking up to what happened on 9 11 and researching it, what are some of the other key points that clearly show that it is impossible that these nineteen people did this; we know that is a fraud. It is a conspiracy theory to say that they did it alone. From your intensive research and your understanding of high-level government activities, what do you think really happened on 9 11? AvB: Well, nobody can prove what happened 9 11 directly because it has been a covert operation and you don't find proof; you will find only indications. And one of the indications- the indication that everything is right with these nineteen people and Usama bin Laden is that the government is free to show all the prove that is on the table that is on the street that lays on the ground of the World Trade Center and so on and so on. If you have a covert operation the probability is always that the leftover pieces of proof are taken away immediately and a lot of secrecy, a band of secrecy, has taken over everything. And, this has happened with 9 11. AJ: And that also happened- where you aware the New York Times and Chicago Tribune reported this in '93, the FBI cooked the bomb and trained the driver[s] and had an Egyptian security agent doing it for them, had two retarded Muslims, literally retarded, drive the truck and park it, let the bombing go forward. At Oklahoma City, the same company that destroyed the remnants of the World Trade Center, blew up the remnants of Oklahoma City [and] had that buried under machine gun guard at a private landfill to this day. And they hauled the rubble away from the W T C to China! They wouldn't let you take photographs. Yes, exactly. AvB: Yeah, then at the beginning the engineers weren't allowed to go up to the steel truss [debris] and had a lot of problems- there was very scarce money. And you know, to clear up the story with Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, the Republican majority gave out sixty million dollars, I think it's seventy now, and they started out with 600 000 dollars to try to figure out what happened on 9 11. And, they were taken away from doing research and so on and so on and they are upset. And, Fire Engineer Magazine said it was totally unbelievable what happened with this examination of 9 11. AJ: Well, they say it was a criminal cover up and now, sir, we've turned into a police state. They can secretly arrest citizens, secretly execute us. They are building admitted prison camps all over the country, this is in our news. We're turning into something like the Soviet Union here. AvB: Well, I can't comment on this but what's going on in Guantanamo is like that. I think the problem is that if you put people, who ever you like in Guantanamo in Cuba, you take them away for one or two years without letting a lawyer to them, without showing them what you are reprising to them, without having contact from their family- they tell in all court processes what the FBI is wanting from them- AJ: Well, sir- AvB: And so you get fake evidence from these kinds of people, if you behave like that. AJ: And sir, sir. Our mainstream news says that torture is good and they say they are torturing people, that's the Washington Post. Is that a concern that our government now admits it's torturing? AvB: Well, I'm informed- I don't know whether they are torturing, keeping them is a kind of a torture, but I am told there is an agreement with a lot of states to put these people to Egypt and other states where torture is accepted and is done and you get the final outcome of this torture and you can produce this in front of German courts and American courts and try to bring about final judgment. AJ: Well that's it. We'll be back; long segment coming up and we'll get more into your book. We're honored to have you, Andreas von Bulow. Stay with us. (Fade) (Commercial Break) AJ: All right folks. We're talking with Andreas von Bulow and to make this clear, up until about two years ago he was the head minister over the Department of Technology and before that he was the head of his party's group on defense. Now, we're going to take calls coming up here in just a few minutes, your chance to talk to Andreas von Bulow and the toll free number to join us on air is 1 800 259 9231. And if you read German, speak German, you can go online just type into a search engine or go to the Website and link though and buy a copy of '9 11 and the CIA.' Now, if you want my videos, 9 11 Road to Tyranny, Masters of Terror, my book '9 11 Descent into Tyranny,' go to Infowars.com, go to PrisonPlanet.com and get them. This story is so important that I authorize you to make copies of my films for not for profit, not for sale educational purposes. I want you to get them, I want you to make copies, I want you to put them on the Internet. If you've done that, I want you to air them on local community television stations which has happened on over four hundred now. Go to Infowars.com, PrisonPlanet.com, get 9 11 Road to Tyranny, get Masters of Terror, get my book 'Descent into Tyranny,' get Paul Watson's book 'Order Out of Chaos' that I've published, they're excellent. The toll free number to order is 1 888 253 3139. Because, if we don't expose the Globalists who clearly carried the attacks out, they're going to carry out more terror. And, they are setting up this police state; the survival of America and frankly the world is at stake because if the Globalists can use our military as their arm to attack sixty-three countries, it's over. So again, that's 1 888 253 3139. The films are 25.95 a piece, twenty buck if you buy three or more, my book is twelve dollars. Again: Inforwars.com or 'net or 1 888 253 3139. Now, going back to Andreas von Bulow, sir, we were talking during the break and I said what are some of the other key points that you would like to go over. You mentioned the CIA and insider trading and the Anthrax attacks. Please discuss it. AvB: Well, the insider trading, everybody knows that there [was] news about insider trading. I think altogether fifteen billion dollars. And, there was speculation about going down, of United Airlines and American Airlines; both airlines which were attacked by 9 11 and other things. So, normally you could find out because I think the American- the CIA together with the financial department, the Treasury, they developed this – watching the markets to find out speculation about going on terrorist attacks. So, they could immediately find out if there were something going on- and they could find out. And, in this case, they- 9 11- the NSA people which are the guys watching via satellites the whole of the transactions going on, on Earth, they said, they told the people to destroy the tapes. They had tapes about this interior trading and they said they had to destroy them so they are not any longer proof. AJ: Now again, interior trading that's a good term for it, insider trading. So again, insider trading or interior trading going on here and fifteen billion dollars, I think that's a low estimate. It came out the first week, Germany reported on it, France reported on it, the US, 'we're going to catch them!' Record put options against United and American; not against other airlines but specifically against these and it leads back to the CIA and suddenly they destroy the evidence. Again, again another smoking gun. Then, you get into anthrax attacks; Bush on Cipro, the most weaponized anthrax ever seen. Tell us about that. AvB: Well, there the question just is who has the responsibility for this! You know, it overlaid the whole public debate of what was the background and reason for 9 11 for weeks because these attacks were going on for weeks and weeks and weeks. And, finally nothing came out. We have no report on who was responsible, who did it and this again is amazing. I think it belongs probably to the cover up of the psychological cover-up of the whole scenery. And then, the vice-President and the President asking Congress not to go into too much detail about the background of 9 11. What does this mean? And until now it's what the President knew before 9 11 is a total secret. I think there is no secret service around the world which gave no hints to the American secret service community, the CIA, the DIA and so on and so on. They did nothing out of it. The most disturbing thing is that these guys that knew about something in coming up 9 11, were cutout before. I mean the local level of the FBI offices, they knew quite a lot and they tried to force the central organization to go into the details about Arabs taking lessons in flight schools and so on. And, the guy who decided on top, I think the second man who was in the FBI he [said] 'no we don't do this' and he got promoted after 9 11. AJ: By the way, the US embassies that allowed supposed Al- Qaeda back in got record cash bonuses. The FBI agents who ordered other FBI agents not to stop Al-Qaeda, they go bonuses. Bush signed W199I months before 9 11 ordering FBI not to stop Al-Qaeda. They threatened to arrest FBI Robert Wright if he tells us what he knows. I've interviewed his lawyer David Schippers who knew about the attacks beforehand. He went to Bush; Bush wouldn't talk to him, Ashcroft wouldn't talk to him. And you said something very astute, sir, you talked about the anthrax being a psychological cover-up of the scenery. That is, all these questions coming out in the early days about 9 11 got blacked out by the anthrax attacks and that's absolutely why that happened. We've tracked that back to Fort Detrick, Maryland. And they said it wasn't weaponized anthrax, it turned out it was the most weaponized ever seen. AvB: Yeah, that's absolutely correct and the wars which were reasoned to be fights against terrorism, the war against Afghanistan to put out the Taliban it was decided long before and I think in June before 9 11. The Afghanistan government- no, the Pakistan government and the Indian government [were] told there would be an intervention in October. AJ: Also, 44 000 US troops, 18 000 US troops were in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, Bush had the battle launch orders on his desk two days before 9 11. AvB: That's exact, that's exactly- AJ: And sir, I want to digress back to torture for a minute because you have been, you've impressed by, I mean you know so much about this, you've researched it so well- On the torture issue, General Rick Baucus quit Guantanamo because he quote 'refused to torture the people there' and the CIA section chief bragged in the Washington Post that they fly them to foreign countries and then the CIA tortures them themselves so they do admit the torture. AvB: (Pause) Sure. I can't comment on this [but] it's obvious; all the court proceedings against for example against Moussaui I think it was the 20th nominally- it was supposed in each aircraft to have five hijackers and this one was taken into prison by the FBI. I think the process was made in Alexandria, Virginia and I think the judge said that if you don't give the proof [of] these guys who are running Al- Qaeda and give these people for cross-examination then I can deliver a judgment. The same is true in Germany; we have people who are related to Al-Qaeda-and probably Al-Qaeda is an artificial, err, [de]nomination of- AJ: CIA fiction. AvB:- a ruse of elements of Islamic people. In Hamburg, the trials are failing because the American government is not delivering the proof. AJ: Absolutely and look, we've had military officers and many others on, it is clear that Al Qaeda is a CIA creation. A foggy boogie man so the military-industrial complex can carry out attacks and then pin it on them and I mean we know when bin Laden blows up a building supposedly, our government pays his family to rebuild it. AvB: Yeah. AJ: I mean there's the payoff right out in the open. AvB: Yeah, the whole background of- the whole personalities like bin Laden, like Al Qaeda, like Taliban, even Saddam Hussein, these are all figures that were handled by the CIA in former times. So probably they are recycled in the system now as bad guys. Before, they were the good guys taking away the Russians out of Afghanistan and dealing with this, getting money for this, getting paid for this now they are used as bad guys. Usama bin Laden has been, in '95, in the Balkans in an operation the Americans were with the UKG in Albania. You find these guys all over; you find these guys in Chechnya for example. There are also 'former Afghanis' as they are called and they are [driven] in loaded planes of the CIA for example. AJ: Absolutely so they provide the crisis so Big Brother could provide the police state solution. Andreas von Bulow it is clear that if we do not expose at least who stands to gain from this terror and who was involved in it, that is the large financial interests that own our government, they are going to be able to use America as the engine of quote imperial mobilization and world domination. As Zbigniew Brzezinski and the PNAC documents said, how important is it to expose this for the future of free humanity? AvB: I think it's, for everybody outside of the United States it's extremely important because it's a question of whether democracy will survive and whether the state of law is kept up or we'll be driven by public relations and financial interest. And I think the main thing for the Americans is who pays for all this. Because, if the oil companies get more cheap oil and make their money out of it, the American taxpayer has to pay for the military machine. The oil companies aren't paying for that. It's not the military-industrial complex paying for that, it is the American taxpayer so it's extremely important. AJ: Absolutely and now we are paying record amounts for fuel for petrol in this country while they have record supplies and the oil companies are posting record profits. I want to get into W T C 7 because I want people to hear these clips. These are from the PBS documentary, and this will just take a minute sir, and then I want to get your comment on it, where they describe how Building 7 fell and how they removed it first because quote 'nobody died in it.' It's the owner, Larry Silverstein who pulled it, gave the order to demolish it on the afternoon of September 11th, so, Mark, go ahead and hit that clip for us please.
AJ: We made the decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse. Now here's Dan Rather, seconds after it collapses and this is what Dan Rather had to say and then we'll get von Bulow's comment.
AJ: Now, again, the seismographs show multiple explosions, the firefighters were told to get back. Von Bulow, how important is this piece of evidence? AvB: The explosions, well the government has to explain it! They have to prove their case. They have to this conspiracy theory that these nineteen Muslims under the direction of Usama bin Laden. It's not my business; it's only 'if there are explosions, if it's true, can it be that the heat out of kerosene is able to destroy these huge buildings in a manner that they are collapsing in a… AJ: Symmetrical. AvB: …free-fall in a very short- in a few seconds, that they broke together. It's nearly impossible. So everything that is on the table is telling that the government story is not true. And there must be another story and it must be explosions and the spikes in geological institutions in five states, 2.2 on the Richter scale, you have to find out what's the background. And five or seven days later the temperature on the ground was five hundred degrees, or a little bit more than 450, if just fires were- AJ: We've got to break. We'll be right back. (Commercial Break) AJ: We're talking with Andreas von Bulow. Former minister at the highest levels of the German government. Former Technology Minister. And I know we have a lot of callers but we only have time to take maybe one or two, Dan in Oklahoma. I just want to commend Andreas von Bulow for writing this book 9 11 and the CIA and I would hope a publisher would get a hold of it and translate it and publish it here because I would definitely carry it. You can find information on the book for those who read and speak German at Infowars.com and PrisonPlanet.com. Andreas von Bulow let's take a call, let's talk to Dan in Oklahoma. Dan, you're on the air go ahead. Dan: Yes, thanks Alex. Mr. von Bulow my question is following this disaster of 9 1 1, I understand Germany, France, and Russia and why they didn't want to get involved because of the money they had invested with Iraq. With the military-industrial complex like it is, what do you understand the New World Order to be especially since they said they could us this event to- AJ: Yes, who are, who are the forces behind government-sponsored terror? AvB: Who are the forces behind government? I do not understand this. AJ: Well we know this global government is forming. We know that powerful financial interests are engineering terror attacks, who are the forces behind the military industrial complex? AvB: Well, it's always interesting. If you look at who owns the munitions factory in the East-West conflict or the Near-East conflict, they are always trying to sell their material to both sides. And, they are always interested in conflict and they would like after the breakdown of the Soviet Union, the noble thing would be to cut down this military-industrial complex, which costs the American taxpayer a huge amount of money. Exactly the same time the Soviet Union breaks down, this new terror thing comes up. The first terrorist attacks were I think the World Trade Center one and you find out the leading guy of this bombing, this time an agricultural bomb, he was going immediately to FBI and saying 'I'll tell you everything about this' and they agreed finally twenty-four hours before the attack in 1993, they would change the powder, the dangerous powder against the [non] dangerous powder and the FBI didn't come up to do this so- AJ: Yeah, they cooked the bomb and trained the drivers and that's another patsy. AvB:-people were [injured] and six people were dead. In Oklahoma you had nearly the same thing. You had two attacks. One was perhaps McViegh and this other guy but there was another attack much more strong than this agricultural bomb and there is an American general, an Air Force general who for I think ten years or fifteen years in charge of this explosive institute and he said never could this agrarian bomb bring about such damage. There must be something else and they found that within the building there were demolition charges. AJ: Absolutely, Dan thanks for the call. I hope we can get you on in the future again, Andreas von Bulow, you've been so kind. You have such amazing courage to stand up and tell the truth and we've been honored to have you on the show from Germany. God bless you. AvB: Thank you. AJ: Thank you very much and have a good evening. |
|
Donn de Grand-Pre, a retired Army colonel, is author of A Window on America, Confessions of an Arms Peddler and his latest, Barbarians Inside the Gates by Donn de Grand-Pre A dedicated group of experienced civilian and military pilots, including combat fighter pilots and commercial airline captains, just finished a marathon 72 hours of non-stop briefings and debate over the current crisis evolving from the use of commercial aircraft as cruise missiles against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 11 September. The so-called terrorist attack was in fact a superbly executed military operation against the United States, requiring the utmost professional military skill in command, communications and control. It was flawless in timing, in the choice of selected aircraft to be used as guided missiles, and in the coordinated delivery of those missiles to their pre-selected targets. As a tactical military exercise against two significant targets (world financial center and the citadel of world strategic military planning), the attack, from a psychological impact on the American public, equaled the Japanese "surprise" attack on Pearl Harbor 7 Dec 1941. The over-riding question: If we are at war, who is the enemy? The group determined that the enemy is within the gates, that he has infiltrated into the highest policy-making positions at the Federal level, and has absolute control, not only of the purse strings, but of the troop build-up and deployment of our military forces, including active, reserve and National Guard units. PRELUDE TO PANIC The 9-11 activity and horrific destruction of US property and lives was intentionally meant to trigger a psychological and patriotic reaction on the part of the US citizens, which is paving the way for "combined UN activity" (using the fig leaf of NATO) for striking key targets in both the Middle East/ South Asia and the Balkans. The goal continues to be ultimate destruction of all national sovereignty and establishment of a global government. The trigger for the 9-11 activity was the imminent and unstoppable world-wide financial collapse, which can only be prevented (temporarily) by a major war, perhaps to become known as WW 111. To bring it off (one more time), martial law will probably be imposed in the United States. In each of the major wars of the 20th century, the financial manipulators (located in the City of London and New York City) had placed the US (and much of the Western world) in a monetary expansion mode, followed by an ever-tightening vice of a gigantic credit squeeze. We now have two ongoing and tightly controlled simultaneous events (emanating from the two symbolic targets of 911:
This bit of saber rattling was seconded by select NATO allies (especially Britain), and by our chief ally in the Middle East, the Butcher of Beirut, Ariel Sharon, while Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld, with the blessings of Pres. Bush 11, is activating thousands of national guard and reservists, not only to guard the vulnerable airports, but to do fly-overs of our Nation's capital in F16s from the North Dakota Air Guard. Other National Guard units are being jockeyed into potential combat "hot spots" throughout the Middle East/South Asia and the Balkans. WHO IS THE ENEMY? Following is a summary of the near-unanimous views of the assembled military and civilian pilots concerning certain critical factors relating to the WTC/Pentagon hit of 9-11: Troubling questions arose about the alleged pilot-hijackers of the four aircraft, who were supposedly trained on Cessna aircraft over the past year at fields in Florida and Oklahoma. One General officer remarked, "I seriously question whether these novices could have located a target dead-on 200 miles removed from takeoff point...-- much less controlled the flight and mastered the intricacies of 11FR (instrument flight rules) -- and all accomplished in 45 minutes." The extremely skillful maneuvering of the three aircraft at near mach speeds, each unerringly hitting their targets, was superb. As one Air Force officer -- a veteran of over 100 sorties over North Vietnam -- explained, "Those birds (commercial airliners) either had a crack fighter pilot in the left seat, or they were being maneuvered by remote control." Another pilot warned that "we had better consider whether electro-magnetic pulse or radio frequency weapons were used from a command and control platform hovering over the Eastern Seaboard... I'm talkin' AWACS." Another comment: "If there was an AWACS on station over the targeted area, did it have a Global Hawk capability? I mean, could it convert the commercial jets to robotic flying missiles? A hotly debated question: Who would be in command of such an Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS)? Were they Chinese -- Russians -- Saudis -- Israelis -- NATO ? All of these countries possess AWACS-type aircraft. All (except the Saudis) have the capability to utilize electro-magnetic pulsing (EMP) to knock out on-board flight controls and communications of targeted aircraft, and then, to fly them by remote control. One of the Air Force officers explained that we had already flown a robot plane the size of a Boeing 737 across the Pacific to Australia -- unmanned -- from Edwards AF13 in California to a successful landing on an Aussie base in South Australia. It flies along a pre-programmed flight path, but is "monitored" (controlled remotely) by a pilot from an outside station. He explained that the London Economist (20 Sep 2001) published comments from the former CEO of British Airways, Robert Ayling, who stated that an aircraft could be commandeered from the ground or air and controlled remotely in the event of a hijack. COMMERCIAL JETS AS GUIDED MISSILES An AP story, dateline Brussels - 7 Oct 01 -- "At Washington's request, NATO will soon deploy surveillance aircraft for anti-terrorist operations in the United States in response to the attacks on New York and Washington, NATO officials said Sunday, an unprecedented use of foreign military forces to defend the U.S. homeland." The assembled group of pilots debated why we would ask for foreign forces to fly AWACS over our sovereign territory when we have a fleet of 33 of them, of which 28 are stationed in Oklahoma. The debate also centered on whether such NATO surveillance aircraft were already here prior to 11 September. Could one of them have commandeered the four airliners? There seems to be wide discrepancies between what the Federal government is proclaiming -- and their media moguls reporting -- as opposed to the calm and reasoned and rational views of those men who fly the planes and defend the nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic. This writer has been a general aviation pilot since 1946. 1 have flown a variety of single engine prop aircraft since, and installed an FAA-approved airstrip here on my farm in 1980. Two local pilots periodically joined me for short hops; one, a Madison County lawyer, a graduate of the Air Force Academy, who flew for the Air Force before coming home to practice law. The other, Kent Hill, who lives with his wife, Carol, on a farm close to mine, is an American Airlines captain assigned to the European route. He was a lifelong friend of "Chic" Burlingame, They were graduates of the Naval Academy and flew F-4 Phantoms in Vietnam. Both left the Navy 28 years ago and joined American Airlines. Both planned to retire in 2002. Chic was the captain of AA flight 77, a Boeing 757, which departed Washington Dulles for Los Angeles at 8: 10 am on I I September, with 58 passengers and a crew of 6. Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon at 9:41 am. "We were totally trained on the old type of hijack," Capt Hill said, "where you treat the hijacker cordially, punch a 4-digit code into your transponder to alert ground control you're being hijacked, and then get him where he wants to go, set the plane safely on the ground and let them deal with it on the ground. However, this is a totally new situation... Not one of the planes alerted ground control that they were being hijacked." How come? "The fact is, all the transponders were turned off on the doomed flights virtually at the same time." Look at their departure times -- two from Logan (Boston), one from Newark, another from Dulles (Washington DC) -- all between 8 am and 8:15. "Shortly after climb-out to flight level, their transponders are de-activated.. (they are no longer a blip on the radar screens). This is something that really needs to be looked into. The only reason we turn them off is so they don't interfere with ground systems when we land." (Note: Transponders identify a particular aircraft in flight on the radar screens of FAA flight controllers located throughout the country. Various codes are punched into the transponder, one displaying, "I am being hijacked.") Although there is much talk among the various flight crews, Hill says they are not privy to any of the investigations into the events of I I September. "We're in the dark -- very much so ... They're playing it pretty tight to the vest." He is convinced none of the pilots had control of their aircraft when they were flown into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The question then becomes, who was really in control? "Even if I had a gun at my head, I'd never fly a plane into a building. I'd try to put it in anywhere -- a field or a river --and I'd be searing the hell out of them (the hijackers) by flying upside down first," Hill said. In fact, the pilot has the best weapon in his hand when threatened with imminent death by a hijacker, namely, the airplane. Another airline pilot stated. "On hearing a major scuffle in the cabin, the pilot should have inverted the aircraft and the hijackers end up with broken necks." That none of the four pilots executed such a maneuver points toward the fact that none of them had control of their aircraft, but had been overridden by an outside force, which was flying them by remote control. As an old and not so bold pilot, I became more convinced that the four commercial jets were choreographed by a "conductor" from a central source, namely an airborne warning and control system (AWACS). They have the electronic capability to engage several aircraft simultaneously, knock out their on-board flight controls by EMP (electro-magnetic pulsing) and assume command and remote control of these targeted aircraft. As we consider all the options -- and enemies -- who performed this act of war, whether from China, Russia, Israel, an Islamic country, or from NATO, we must also consider that the enemy may be within the gates. If so, then we are dealing with high treason. IS THERE A CHINA - ISRAEL CONNECTION? Under a heading "High-powered Microwave weapons' (Regnery Pub 1999) reported: ', the authors of Red Dragon Rising, High-powered microwave weapons (sometimes known as radio frequency [RF] weapons) which the PLA calls the 'superstars' of warfare, represent the new armaments that may define twenty-first century warfare. These very dangerous weapons can jam electronic equipment by emitting an extremely powerful pulse of electromagnetic energy over a wide area, or their energy can be focused in a narrow beam for use against American satellites I or commercial airliners - Ed 1. In that startling and factual work, the authors highlight the exceptional efforts on the part of the PLA to acquire the latest hi-tech data from the United States, especially for the "superstars of radio frequency and electro-magnetic pulse weaponry." In their chapter on "Targeting America", the authors refer to a bipartisan Cox-Dicks Committee given the task to investigate "U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial concerns with the Peoples Republic of China". They point out that the Clinton administration changed the export control regulations (Jan 1996) and that by the end of 1998 the PRC had 600 American super computers. In 1997-98 the Congressional Joint Economic Committee held hearings on "Radio Frequency Weapons and Proliferation: Potential Impact on the Economy". Several experts appearing before the Committee warned that these weapons pose a distinct threat to the United States. It was revealed during the hearings that China (PLA) has had a high-powered microwave weapon program for 25 years under the direction of one of many Chinese students educated at Berkeley over the years. The key statement was that the PLA has access to American research -- "through espionage". Let's fast-forward to 1999 and to a New York Times Op Ed piece by A. M. Rosenthal (22 Oct 1999), in which he described the long-secret arms deals between Israel and Red China He was the managing editor of the New York Times for 15 years prior to that article appearing and a dedicated supporter of Israel. However, as a result of that article, he was fired. The title of his Op Ed was "The Deadly Cargo", and the lead sets the theme: More often now, the special cargo arrives in China from Israel -- riles from Israeli military computers, crates with the makings of missiles and other weapons, and the men in the lab coats, the engineers and scientists who know how to put it all together... And now I see the Chinese minister of defense, who is one of the ranking Tiananmen killers, visits Israel. I read obsequious Israeli speeches praising him and his government... The two countries talk openly about bigger arms deals in the making. I learn that the Chinese have knit together Russian and Israeli specialties... The Russians are converting Ilyushin planes into the framework of U.S.-type flying command posts (AWACS) and will ship them to Israel... In an astounding interview by Tom Valentine [editor of American Free Press, formerly The Spotlight and Liberty Lobby] (24 Oct 1999) on Radio Free America [GCNlive.com, WBCR 1470AM Alcoa, TN] with Andrew St. George the two developed the emerging scandal of Israel's secret arms deal with Red China. They referred to the Cox Committee hearings and stated that "unfortunately , the official Cox 'investigation' into China's capture of American technology covered up Israel's involvement." Valentine stressed that the Reagan administration allowed the trade to escalate in the 1980s, with the help and encouragement of such officials as Richard Perle, Stephen Bryen, Fred Ickle and Paul Wolfowitz ... "They were the kingpins of the Defense Department in the Reagan years." In case you missed it, they are now back as key advisers to President Bush II; in fact, the leading war hawk pressing for our armed forces to go to war against the Muslim World is the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz. We are being deluged by the current crop of Israel Firsters, all shouting "It's time to declare war". and "First war of 21st Century" ( Alan Dershowitz on CNN - William Kristol, Washington Times - Leonard Piekoff, Washington Post)), and former Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, appearing before the U.S. Congress, QUO VADIS? (Whither Goest?) To better grasp where we are heading (other than to the Khyber Pass), we can dip back to recent history (Vietnam, Korea, Desert Storm, Kosovo) to get a better focus of the direction we are going, even though our commander-in-chief has yet to define the specific enemy. "Terrorism is like sin; everybody is agin'it." To those of us who have actually engaged an enemy (often contrived) on the battlefield, and/or who have an-n-chaired other wars from a vantage point, say, the E-Ring of the Pentagon, the pomposity and solemnity and the speechifying of our fearless politicians, as well as their favorite talking heads on the idiot box, is eerily familiar. It is in fact de ja vous all over again. Once again, we will rely on "perpetual war for perpetual peace" to bring us out of the abyss of a major financial collapse. We either turn out the Barbarians Inside the Gates, or we prepare for the long dark night of no return. There is no longer a third option. It's curtain call at the Little Theater off Times Square... Be There! American History of Robot Drone Military Aircraft
|
|
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency DARPA.MIL
|
|
War on terror - Landing by remote control doesn't quite fly with pilots By Jeff Long
The military has been flying planes and landing them safely by remote control for years, but airline pilots say questions about security must be answered before that technology is used aboard commercial jetliners to thwart hijackers the way President Bush suggested Thursday during a speech in Chicago.
"We will look at all kinds of technologies to make sure that our airlines are safe," Bush said at O'Hare International Airport. "... including technology to enable controllers to take over distressed aircraft and land it by remote control." Pilots said after the speech that though they support other proposals for airplane security that Bush outlined, the idea of aircraft being remotely controlled concerns them. "If the good guys can take control of the plane" from the ground, said John Mazor, a spokesman for the Air Line Pilots Association, "maybe the bad guys can take control of it too." Taking control of a hijacked aircraft from the ground appears to be less feasible than other measures, he said. "We would view that as a very--very--long-term type of undertaking," Mazor said. "There are enormous technical difficulties in trying to rig up an aircraft for that." But companies that have designed such systems for the military say it wouldn't be difficult to adapt the technology for commercial aircraft.
General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc. developed a remote-controlled reconnaissance plane for the Air Force called Predator, which flew in Bosnia during the conflict there. Used by the military since 1994, it can be landed by pilots linked by satellite using controls on the ground or ordering an onboard computer to do the job. Tom Cassidy, president and CEO of the San Diego company, said he sent Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta a letter shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks. "Such a system would not prevent a hijacker from causing mayhem on the aircraft or exploding a device and destroying the aircraft in flight," the letter said, "but it would prevent him from flying the aircraft into a building or populated areas." Cassidy said Thursday that a pilot aboard a commercial airliner could turn the plane's guidance over to ground controllers at the press of a button, preventing a hijacker--or anyone else aboard--from flying the plane. That system also would keep people on the ground from taking control of a plane away from the pilot, Cassidy said, because the pilot would first have to give up control. Aircraft anywhere in the nation could be remotely controlled from just one or two locations using satellite links, Cassidy said. Those locations could be heavily fortified against terrorists. "The technology is available," Cassidy said. "We use it every day." Copyright © 2002, Chicago Tribune |
|
Unmanned Aerial Drones Raise Specter of Big Brother Richmond Times-Dispatch WASHINGTON When it flies overhead at 65,000 feet - or 12 miles high - an unmanned airplane called Global Hawk can spy a milk carton sitting on a picnic table, manufacturer Northrop Grumman Corp. says. The U.S. Air Force employed this flying drone and a smaller one called Predator effectively over Iraq. Next, the federal government is considering use of the $35 million Global Hawk and other unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs, as part of high-tech arsenal to protect the United States. Sen. John W. Warner of Virginia, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has urged President Bush to "explore the option of using UAVs for the critical homeland defense mission." He suggested uses from patrolling borders to monitoring the shipping of hazardous materials and security for dams, power plants and drinking-water utilities. Top officials at the new Department of Homeland Security have discussed a demonstration UAV project. The Coast Guard has awarded a contract to Bell Helicopter for three prototype Eagle Eye UAVs, an aircraft that takes off like a helicopter and flies like an airplane. Industry representatives are enthusiastic about the drones' potential. "I believe we will see Predator and Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) watching over major events, such as the Olympic Games and the Super Bowl, in the not-too-distant future," Brad Brown, then-president of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International wrote earlier this year. For some privacy advocates, the talk about civilian use of unmanned aircraft has raised a specter of Big Brother in the skies, and a new privacy debate is brewing. "The law that governs how the government can use these technologies is back in the stone ages. Our laws say that if you're in a public place, the government can surveil you," said lawyer Barry Steinhardt of the American Civil Liberties Union. When the law was conceived, Steinhardt said, "No one imagined the extraordinary power that would be given to the government by new technologies. They really are, in many respects, Superman's powers." If the laws aren't updated, he cautioned, "Pretty soon we're going to live in a surveillance society where our every movement, action or utterance is going to be tracked and monitored." Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy and Information Center in Washington, believes constitutional issues could come into play. "It's a serious issue when the government takes technologies that are designed for military use and battlefield use and directs them toward the civilian population of the United States," Rotenberg said. Sen. Warner, a Republican, said he hoped a cabinet secretary overseeing any surveillance use of UAVs over the United States would impress upon operators that "you must guard the privacy rights of individuals, [and] they can only be overcome if it's a compelling problem of national security." He urged reposing trust in the top authorities. But Daniel J. Solove, a privacy-law expert, urged new rules for accountability if the government adopts the unmanned airborne-surveillance technology for civilian purposes. "What would happen if J. Edgar Hoover had it?" asked Solove, who teaches at Seton Hall University School of Law. "If you look at the history of what the FBI did throughout the 20th century, it is shocking and appalling." The Senate, in its spending plan for fiscal 2004, has asked President Bush to report by April on potential applications for flying drones in supporting homeland-security missions. Warner's Senate Armed Services Committee directed that the report also discuss "important issues of safety, privacy and civil liberties" before the UAVs operate over U.S. territory. Warner is among those who have pushed for accelerating the use of flying drones by the military. Interest in them is growing: UAV funding exploded from $284 million for 2000 to $1.725 billion in Bush's budget for 2004, according to Unmanned Systems, a magazine published by the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International. Daryl Davidson, executive director of the Arlington-based group, discounted the Big Brother fears as alarmist. Privacy issues will be tackled in time, he said. He contended the immediate concern is developing rules and procedures for unmanned aircraft and general manned air traffic to share airspace. "It is my expectation that as we move toward normalizing UAVs flying in public air space that one of a number of issues that will be addressed will be the privacy issue," Davidson said. Other uses that have been discussed for UAVs in the future, if airspace rules are ironed out, include cargo shipping, traffic control, disaster assessment, weather forecasting and monitoring forest fires. Another industry official contended that trust is paramount if the government turns to UAVs for homeland security. "You've got to trust that it would be used for the intended purpose. The intended purpose is security of individuals, not prying into their lives," said John Porter, manager of business development for General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc. His company makes the Predator. Moreover, typical homeland-defense surveillance ware would be focused on such targets at a distance as a small craft smuggling drugs onto a beach and would not be well suited for identifying individuals, industry officials said. "This is not a James Bond film," said Ron Bauer, director of sales for Sarnoff Corp., whose products include digital TV for surveillance. "Somewhere the reality meets the fantasy part." The top-of-the-line Global Hawk, with a length of 44 feet and wingspan of 116 feet, has a payload with three kinds of sensors. They are electro-optical, producing high-resolution digital images; infrared; and synthetic-aperture radar, which Northrop Grumman says can see through weather, haze and dust. "The combination of these is like having a human eye, a cat's eye and an electronic eyeball in one system," a company spokeswoman explained. While the Global Hawk's operators could identify a milk carton on a picnic table, she added, they could not tell whether it contained 1 percent or 2 percent milk, nor could they identify if the occupant of a car under surveillance was Saddam Hussein. To an academic expert on surveillance technology, the pluses of using unmanned aircraft for homeland security could easily outweigh the minuses, provided there is proper training and supervision and a technology that is economical. "We're probably going to see more concern about when the possibility of invasions of privacy are not by government agents, but by private individuals" snooping on others, said Mark Monmonier, a geographer at Syracuse University's Maxwell School. As long as flying drones used by the government do the same kinds of surveillance that operators of manned aircraft have conducted, he did not foresee legal problems, added Monmonier, author of "Spying with Maps: Surveillance Technologies and the Future of Privacy." Virginia's Warner, meanwhile, apparently believes that when the United States is guarding against another terrorist attack, expanded use of UAVs is a good idea and privacy concerns can be balanced. The fifth-term senator used a hypothetical story to allow that with a new high-tech security net, a private citizen just might get ensnared. What if, the senator said, an unmanned aircraft flew over a coastal area and captured on videotape a man with a woman - not his wife but his mistress - walking down the beach. "C'est la guerre," Warner said, using the French phrase for "that's war." Contact Peter Hardin at (202) 662-7669 or phardin@mediageneral.com
Altair/Predator B UAV soon to join NASA's research/test fleet Civilian robot drones now flying over America DFRC.NASA.GOV
The Altair, a new unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) that will soon join NASA's fleet, is one of several UAVs designed for civil applications that have been developed or matured under the Environmental Research Aircraft and Sensor Technology (ERAST) program at NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center at Edwards, Calif. The Altair is a modified civil version of the MQ-9 Predator B military UAV being developed through a partnership with General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc., (GA-ASI). The Predator B is an enlarged version of GA-ASI's RQ-1A Predator unmanned reconnaissance airplane, which has drawn attention for its role in gathering intelligence and as a missile-firing platform during U.S. anti-terrorist military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. Altair took to the air on its initial checkout flight on June 9, 2003 from GA-ASI's flight test facility at El Mirage, Calif. The first UAV to have complex triple-redundant flight controls and avionics systems, Altair will have a mission endurance of up to 32 hours. It can reach a maximum altitude of about 52,000 feet (10 miles), and will have a maximum range of about 4,200 miles. It can carry up to 750 pounds (340 kg) of sensors, radar, communications and imaging equipment in its forward fuselage. The Altair is 34 feet (10.4 meters) long, and has a wingspan of 86 feet (26.2 meters), 22 feet longer than the Predator B's 64-foot wingspan. It is powered by a reliable 700 horsepower rear-mounted Honeywell TPE-331-10T turboprop engine driving a three-blade controllable-pitch propeller. Though unmanned, the Altair will be able to operate from conventional airports without conflict with the piloted aircraft, as air-traffic controllers will be able to talk to the ground-based Altair pilots through a voice relay. The Altair can be controlled at great distances through an "over the horizon" satellite link. That link will also allow scientists to receive research information as soon as the Altair gathers it. The plane will also include "detect, see and avoid" technology to detect other aircraft on possible collision courses. After its initial airworthiness test flights, Altair will serve as the avionics test aircraft for the production version of the MQ-9 Predator B before being transferred to NASA. At NASA Dryden, the one-of-a-kind Altair will first be used as a test aircraft to evaluate various new control and communications technologies such as those noted above that are critical to allowing UAVs to fly safely in national airspace with other manned aircraft. Later, NASA will be able to use the Altair for a variety of environmental science missions. Possible missions being considered include volcanic observation, forest fire monitoring and atmospheric sampling—the missions that are often too dangerous, difficult or even just too dull for manned aircraft to perform. Researchers also believe that the Altair has significant disaster-management potential, and have proposed using the Altair to provide firefighters and rescue workers bird's-eye images of forest fires and other disasters. Altair can carry a thermal imager capable of seeing through smoke, and may also fly a small synthetic-aperture radar (SAR) that can see through water vapor, clouds and smoke. SAR can provide very detailed images of flooding, damaged buildings and other infrastructures that are difficult to detect in bad weather. NASA and GA-ASI are jointly funding development of the Altair and Predator B prototypes under the ERAST program. GA-ASI also built the Altair's predecessor, the Altus 2, for NASA under ERAST. The Altus has been flown on several operational and demonstration science missions over the past few years, and maintained stable flight for four hours at 55,000 feet altitude during a test mission several years ago. Safety fears over unmanned planes Robot drones now flying with civilian airliners from civilian airports in USA Claire Bowles A plan for pilotless aircraft to begin operating routinely from ordinary airports in the US is being greeted with alarm by aviation safety campaigners. They say such operations would put at risk the safety of other planes, passengers on the ground and people living near the airports. The plan, which also involves giving unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) easier access to UScivil airspace, is the result of a powerful partnership led by the Pentagon, NASA, Lockheed-Martin, Northrop Grumman and Boeing. Called Access 5, the group aims to loosen restrictions on where UAVs can operate within 5 years. For most of their flight, UAVs are controlled by a pilot on the ground via a satellite radio link. At present, anyone wanting to fly one in civilian airspace has to file a detailed flight plan with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) at least 30 days in advance. Access 5 wants UAVs to be allowed to fly on the day the plan is filed, like any other aircraft. The group hopes that this rapid approval for UAV flights will allow the craft to fly more flexible missions. But critics fear it may eventually pave the way for pilotless cargo flights. The prospect of UAVs sharing runways with passenger planes is raising serious concerns. "What happens if a pilotless plane hits an airport terminal or another plane?" asks Gail Dunham of the National Air Disaster Alliance, an airline safety pressure group based in Washington DC. "We are totally opposed to this plan." Warren Morningstar at the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association in Frederick, Maryland, says avoiding collisions with other aircraft is the major concern. "How do you accomplish that when you don't have a pilot on board?" he asks. UAVs have been used for military scouting and attack missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo and elsewhere. But they will also become important to civilian scientists performing environmental monitoring, volcanic observation and atmospheric sampling because they can stay aloft far longer than piloted planes. A group led by Glenn Hamilton of NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center in Edwards, California, has modified a military Predator UAV for such applications. Called the Altair, the craft made its maiden flight this month. But before such a UAV is allowed to fly in civilian airspace, its operator has to prove to the FAA that it has an equivalent level of safety to a piloted aircraft. This is a lengthy process that currently takes between 30 and 60 days. The operator files a detailed flight plan with the FAA, listing every detail of the craft's journey: where it will be flying, how it is controlled and, perhaps most importantly, what will happen if the radio link with the pilot on the ground is lost. Only then will the FAA allow it to take off. These restrictions mean that UAVs only fly in controlled US airspace about 10 times a year. Advocates of UAVs say these controls are far stricter than they need to be. The Pentagon admits that the Global Hawk UAV has a crash rate more than 50 times that of F-16 piloted fighter jets, and has set a target to reduce this by 2009 (see Graph). Even then, the 25 crashes per 100,000 flying hours that the Pentagon is aiming for will still exceed that of piloted planes. But the UAV's proponents claim these figures can be misleading. For example, when a military UAV fails to return from a mission it can be impossible to tell whether it was shot down, or crashed because of a systems or communications failure. One crucial question for safety campaigners is what will happen if the link between the ground pilot and the UAV is interrupted while the craft is taking off or landing. Hamilton describes the chances of this happening as "minuscule", because for these operations there are two direct line-of-sight radio links, rather than just a satellite link. But airline safety analyst Todd Curtis of Airsafe.com insists that plans must always be in place to deal with the loss of the control link, however unlikely that is. Denis Chagnon of the International Civil Aviation Organization in Montreal believes global civil UAV operations are, ultimately, unstoppable. "Pilotless aircraft are coming," he says. "We just have to be ready for them." NASA's Newest Unmanned Aircraft Makes Successful First Flight Civilian Altair/Predator B mixes it up with commuter traffic ScienceDaily.com June 9, 2003 -- A milestone in the development of high-altitude, long-endurance, remotely operated aircraft occurred today with the successful flight of NASA's Altair. Altair is the first unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) to feature triple-redundant flight systems and avionics for increased reliability. The slender-wing aircraft lifted off the runway at General Atomics Aeronautical Systems' Inc. (GA-ASI) flight test facility at El Mirage, Calif. The purpose of the historic first flight was to evaluate the UAV's basic airworthiness and flight controls. After the successful test flight, Altair glided to a landing on the remote desert runway. The entire flight was conducted at low altitude within a relatively short range of the El Mirage flight test facility. "This is what we've been waiting for," said Glenn Hamilton, Altair project manager at NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center (DFRC), Edwards, Calif. "Now we can move forward with getting UAVs into the national airspace and conducting research," he said. Thomas J. Cassidy, president and chief executive officer of San Diego-based GA-ASI, echoed Hamilton's comments. "Altair's first flight is a culmination of 10 years of experience in building reliable unmanned aircraft based on a common design philosophy," Cassidy said. "I am very proud of our design, manufacturing and flight-readiness teams for their dedication to a high performance level of excellence." Built to performance specifications established by NASA's Earth Science Enterprise, Altair is an extended-wing version of the MQ-9 Predator B military UAV being developed under a partnership with GA-ASI. Altair is one of several UAVs designed for civil applications that have been developed or matured under the Environmental Research Aircraft and Sensor Technology (ERAST) program at DFRC. After initial airworthiness test flights, Altair will serve as the avionics test aircraft for the production version of the MQ-9 before being transferred to NASA. At DFRC, Altair will first be used to evaluate various new control communications and collision-avoidance technologies that are critical to enabling UAVs to fly safely in national airspace. Eventually NASA will use Altair for a variety of environmental science missions, such as volcanic observation, forest fire monitoring and atmospheric sampling. The UAV may be ideal for missions that are often too dangerous, difficult or lengthy for manned aircraft. UAVs are uniquely positioned to perform long missions that have repetitive routines. Altair is expected to be the first UAV to meet Federal Aviation Administration requirements to operate from conventional airports, with piloted aircraft, in the national airspace. In addition to triple-redundant avionics, Altair is configured with a fault-tolerant, dual-architecture flight control system. The UAV will be equipped with an automated collision-avoidance system and an air traffic control voice relay. The relay allows air-traffic controllers to talk to ground-based Altair pilots through the aircraft. Command and control of the Altair, as well as research data gathered by the UAV, will be transmitted through an "over the horizon" satellite link. The link will also allow scientists to receive research information as soon as Altair obtains it. Altair has been designed to fly continuously for up to 32 hours. It can reach an altitude of approximately 52,000 feet and has a maximum range of about 4,200 miles. Altair can carry up to 750 pounds of sensors, radar, communications and imaging equipment in its forward fuselage. The Altair is 34 feet long, with a wingspan of 86 feet, 22 feet longer than Predator B. A 700 horsepower, rear-mounted turboprop engine powers Altair with a three-blade controllable-pitch propeller. NASA and GA-ASI are jointly funding development of the Altair and Predator B prototypes under the ERAST program. GA-ASI built Altair's predecessor, the Altus 2. For video footage of the test flight, call 661/276-2665. Photos are available. For information about NASA and aerospace programs on the Internet, visit NASA.GOV. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers Senator Kennedy 'deeply concerned' about remote control safety CLEVELAND, March 13 -- U.S. Senator Edward M. Kennedy said he is "deeply concerned about the growing threat to worker and public safety from the use of remote control technology" in a March 11 letter to Allan Rutter, Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration. The Senator was critical of the FRA's inaction and its refusal to meet with BLE leaders regarding the petition for a rulemaking on the remote control issue. "It is time for the Federal Railroad Administration to act," he wrote. "The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers petitioned for rulemaking on the use of remote control devices on November 17, 2000, and has yet to receive a response. An FRA safety advisory in February 2001 contained only recommended guidelines, which are not enforceable." The Senator also pointed to growing public concern over the use of remote control trains. He noted that a number of cities and towns across the United States have passed resolutions calling for a ban and/or improved safety regulations remote control trains. "In Massachusetts, the Boston City Council passed a resolution on February 13, 2003, demanding that railroads halt the operation of remote control locomotives until safety considerations are met," Senator Kennedy wrote. "The resolution cites numerous safety concerns, including terrorism, public safety, passenger rail safety, and the lack of training by remote control operators." Senator Kennedy ended his letter by urging Administrator Rutter to act quickly on the remote control issue before further accidents causes more injuries to additional railroad workers. "We cannot continue to allow preventable accidents to threaten the lives of workers and the public," Senator Kennedy concluded. "I urge you to address these issues as quickly as possible, and make every effort to ensure that FRA follows through on its mission." A copy of the letter is available here as a PDF: Thursday, March 13, 2003 Loco Remote Control Info Bakersfield, Calif., passes remote control resolution
More than 300 attend BLE-IBT remote control rally
IBT/BLE rally in front of FRA on remote control
Response to UTU article: "The odds on a UTU/BLE merger just got better"
Engineers rally for remote control safety
Beardstown, Ill., bans remote control
Kentucky county asks FRA to ban remotes
Unions urge emergency order to stop railroad remote controls |
|
WASHINGTON, Nov. 6, 2002 With the killing of six al Qaeda suspects in Yemen by a missile fired from a pilotless Predator spy plane [but no crater visible as required after a bomb explosion], the CIA's combat participation in the war on terrorism has expanded beyond Afghanistan. The Predator has become a deadly tool and powerful psychological weapon that seemingly comes from nowhere to deliver a fiery strike. "It's a demonstration that al Qaeda can run, but they can't hide," said Daniel Mulvenna, a terrorism expert at the Center for Counterintelligence and Security Studies outside Washington. "Eventually the technological reach of the U.S. intelligence community is going to produce these opportunities." Missiles fired from lurking Predators have killed Osama bin Laden's operations chief and threatened an Afghan warlord. The deadly drones give the CIA a way to track and kill suspected terrorists without putting U.S. pilots at risk, admittedly with the possibility of unintended civilian casualties. The Yemen strike killed Qaed Salim Sinan al-Harethi, al Qaeda's chief operative in Yemen and a suspect in the October 2000 bombing of the destroyer USS Cole that killed 17 American sailors, U.S. officials said. Five other people, also believed to be al Qaeda operatives, were riding in al-Harethi's car and died in the attack. The attack provoked criticism of U.S. tactics in the broadening terror war. Swedish Foreign Minister Anna Lindh called the strike "a summary execution that violates human rights." "Even terrorists must be treated according to international law. Otherwise, any country can start executing those whom they consider terrorists," she said. The airstrike on al-Harethi's car was reminiscent of Israeli airstrikes that target vehicles of suspected members of the radical Islamic groups. The U.S. government has criticized that practice, most recently on Tuesday. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher deflected questions on the attack in Yemen, but said U.S. opposition remains to "targeted killings" of Palestinians by Israel. "If you look back at what we have said about targeted killings in the Israeli-Palestinian context, you will find that the reasons we have given do not necessarily apply in other circumstances," Boucher said. The White House defended the Yemen operation. "Sometimes the best course is a good offense," presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer said Tuesday. "The president has made clear that we fight the war on terrorism wherever we need. Terrorists don't recognize any borders or nations." The use of the armed Predator apparently was the first outside Afghanistan, where CIA-operated drones have fired at least four times. One of those attacks, a November operation that also included strikes by U.S. military aircraft, killed al Qaeda military head Mohammed Atef. The United States developed the Predator after the 1991 Persian Gulf war to give military commanders views of the battlefield without having to put pilots there. First used in 1995, the remote-controlled spy plane can lurk in an area for up to 16 hours, unseen and unheard at 15,000 feet, its cameras transmitting live video, infrared or radar pictures to military commanders or intelligence officials anywhere in the world. The video is sharp enough to be able to spot a person from five miles away, officials say. The CIA was the first to fly Predators modified to carry one Hellfire missile under each wing. Originally built as anti-tank weapons for Army helicopters, the 125-pound Hellfires streak through the air faster than the speed of sound to deliver about 17 pounds of high explosives. The Bush administration has ordered an additional 22 of the aircraft and their associated ground stations at a cost of about $160 million. The Air Force already has about four dozen of them and the CIA has an undisclosed number. The Predator has its limits. Like other small planes, it can't fly in harsh weather like snow or fog, and its video would be largely useless in those conditions anyway. The plane also can be difficult to fly and is vulnerable to enemy anti-aircraft fire. At least nine Air Force Predators and one CIA drone have crashed during missions involving Afghanistan or Iraq since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. |
|
World War 2 - BQ-7 - Operation APHRODITE Last revised July 25, 1999 Approximately 25 high-time Fortresses (mainly B-17Fs) were converted into radio-controlled flying bombs under the designation BQ-7. They were designed to be used against German V-1 missile sites, submarine pens, or deep fortifications that had resisted conventional bombing. The name of the USAAF officer who first thought of the idea of using war-weary B-17s as flying bombs has been lost to history, but the plan was proposed to Maj Gen James Doolittle under the code name Operation Aphrodite, and he approved it on June 26, 1944. Responsibility for preparing and flying the drone aircraft was given to the 3rd Bombardment Division, which passed the job down to the 388th Bombardment Group, which in turn passed responsibility down to the 562nd Squadron based at Honington in Suffolk. The B-17s selected for the project were stripped of their normal military equipment and packed with up to 9 tons of explosives. Each pilotless bomber was fitted with a radio-controlled flight system known as Double-Azon. A television camera was placed on the flight deck so that an image of the main instrument panel could be sent back to a controlling aircraft. A second TV camera was installed inside the Plexiglas nose which gave a television monitor in the controlling aircraft a view of the ground so that the robot machine could be directed onto the target. It was planned that a volunteer two-man crew would get the ship off the ground and fly it up to an operational altitude of 2000 feet, point the aircraft in the general direction of the target, arm the explosives for an on-impact detonation, hand over control to the director aircraft that was flying above at 20,000 feet, and then parachute to safety while still over England. The canopy was removed from each aircraft, creating an open cockpit so that the two-man crew could exit the plane with minimum delay once they had completed their tasks. The controlling B-17 would then direct the BQ-7 to the target area over the Continent and lock its controls into a crash course into the target before turning to escape. Upon completion of the training program, the squadron with its 10 drones and four command ships moved to an airfield at Woodbridge, which was a few miles from the Suffolk coast northeast of London. They then moved to a small satellite airfield at Fersfield, 25 miles from Woodbridge, in a very isolated area that was well away from any civilian areas. The first mission took place on August 4. The target was a V-1 site in Pas-de-Calais. In the first phase of the mission, two motherships and two drones took off. Unfortunately, one of the drones went out of control shortly after the first crewman had bailed out. It crashed near the coastal village of Orford, destroying two acres of trees and digging an enormous crater. The body of the other crewman was never found. The second drone was successfully dispatched toward the Pas-de-Calais. Unfortunately, clouds obscured the television view from the nose just as the drone approached the target site, and the plane missed the target by 500 feet. The second phase of the mission fared little better. One robot BQ-7 had a control malfunction before it could dive onto its target and was shot down by German flak. The other one missed its target by 500 yards. On August 6, another task force of two robots and four command ships was sent out against V-1 targets in France. The crews parachuted clear of the aircraft without incident, but within minutes one of the drones went out of control and crashed into the sea. The other drone decided to develop a mind of its own and the explosives-packed aircraft began to circle the industrial area of Ipswich before flying out to sea, where it was harmlessly ditched. After these early failures, General Doolittle decided that it might be a good idea to suspend further missions until it could be determined what was going wrong. Most of the advisers pointed the finger at the Double-Azon radio control system and recommended conversion to a new system known as Castor. The first *Castor* raid was an attack on targets at Heligoland. Again, it started badly--the parachute of the pilot of one of the drones failed to open when he bailed out, and he was killed. Nevertheless, the drone made it all the way to Heligoland, but it crashed some 100 yards short of the target, probably a victim of flak. The next mission was against targets on Heide/Hemmingstedt. The first robot crashed short of its target because of director disorientation caused by image distortion in the television monitor, whereas the second robot malfunctioned and had to be ditched at sea. Further sorties against Heligoland took place in October, but yielded little success. One drone was shot down by flak, whereas another went out of control and ended up over the North Sea where it finally ran out of fuel and crashed into the water. A third drone failed to locate its target due to low visibility. The exasperated director crew pointed the BQ-7 in the general direction of Berlin and let it go. The fourth drone actually crashed near its target and caused some serious damage and fairly heavy casualties. On October 27, the headquarters of the US Strategic Air Forces in Europe concluded that these attacks by BQ-7s against hard targets were not yielding much success, and decided that further targets for the BQ-7s would be industrial targets in large German cities. The first of these sorties was on December 5, the target being a group of railroad marshaling yards west of Hannover. Because of bad weather, the first robot could not find the primary target, and was shot down by flak while approaching the secondary target. The second robot failed to explode when it crashed, leaving the Germans with a relatively undamaged aircraft with a complete set of remote controls that they could examine. The last Aphrodite mission was on January 20, 1945, against a power station at Oldenberg. Both drones missed their targets by several miles. After this last effort, the *Aphrodite* concept was abandoned as being unfeasible. In retrospect, the Aphrodite concept was a costly failure, and was often more dangerous to the crews which operated the drones than it was to the Germans. It turned out that the hardware available in 1944 was simply not good enough to do the kind of job that was required. Incidentally, the BQ-7 was NOT the plane responsible for the death of Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr. The plane that killed JFK's older brother was a converted Consolidated PB4Y-1, a Navy version of the B-24 Liberator.
Sources:
From U.S. Civil War to Afghanistan: A Short History of UAVs By Jim Garamone WASHINGTON, April 16, 2002 -- During the American Civil War, both sides tried to use rudimentary unmanned aerial vehicles. According to Dyke Weatherington, deputy of the Defense UAV Office, Union and Confederate forces launched balloons loaded with explosive devices. The idea, he said, was for the balloons to come down inside a supply or ammunition depot and explode. "It wasn't terribly effective," he said during a recent interview. The Japanese tried a similar ploy late in World War II. They launched balloon bombs laden with incendiary and other explosives. The theory was high-altitude winds would carry the balloons over the United States, where the bombs would start forest fires and cause panic and mayhem. The Japanese weren't able to gauge their success and so called it a flop and quit after about a month. The United States also tried a type of UAV during World War II called Operation Aphrodite. "There were some rudimentary attempts to use manned aircraft in an unmanned role. The limitation there was, we didn't have the technology to launch these systems on their own and control them" Weatherington said. Allied forces used the modified manned aircraft basically as cruise missiles. The idea was a pilot would take off, get the plane to altitude, ensure it was stable and then pass control to another aircraft through a radio link before bailing out. It was on one such top-secret Operation Aphrodite mission in 1944 that President John Kennedy's older brother, Navy Lt. Joseph P. Kennedy Jr., died when his bomber mysteriously exploded after takeoff. During the Vietnam War, technology started to make UAVs more effective. Weatherington said they were used fairly extensively and were called drones. Large numbers of modified Firebee drones overflew North Vietnam. The aircraft, about the size of today's Predator UAV, launched first for simple day reconnaissance missions at varying altitude levels. "They had conventional cameras in them," Weatherington said. "Later on, they were used for other missions such as night photo, comint and elint, leaflet dropping and surface-to-air missile (SAM) radar detection, location and identification." One of these Firebees hangs in the Air Force Museum at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, amassing over 65 individual missions. As a whole, Firebees flew over 3,400 sorties during the Vietnam War. Several of the UAVs we know today owe much to Israel, which develops UAVs aggressively. The U.S. Hunter and Pioneer UAVs are direct derivatives of Israeli systems, Weatherington said. The Navy and Marine Corps operate the Pioneer UAV system has been in operation since 1985. Once during Desert Storm, Iraqi troops actually surrendered to a Pioneer. At the time, the battleship USS Missouri used its Pioneer to spot for its 16-inch main guns and devastate the defenses of Faylaka Island, which is off the Kuwaiti coast near Kuwait City. Shortly after, while still over the horizon and invisible to the defenders, the USS Wisconsin deliberately flew its Pioneer low over Faylaka Island. When the Iraqi defenders heard the sound of the UAV's two-cycle engine, they knew they were targeted for more naval shelling. The Iraqis signaled surrender by waving handkerchiefs, undershirts and bed sheets. Following the Gulf War, military officials recognized the worth of the unmanned systems. The Predator started life as an Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration project. The program hurried the development of the Predator along, and it demonstrated its worth in the skies over the Balkans. The Predator operates between 15,000 and 25,000 feet. It carries three sensor systems: a color video camera and synthetic-aperture radar. The Air Force has also placed Hellfire missiles aboard the Predator. In the near future, the UAV might aim a laser at a target and attack it. The combat Predator can also mark targets with its laser for other aircraft or read targets marked by other sources. Predator is not an all-weather system, however. As an result of lessons-learned in the Balkans, Predator employs a simple anti-icing system allows it to exit the icing condition but will not allow it to conduct continuous operations in the condition. The new Predator B has a number of characteristics that will better allow it to deal with a wider range of environmental events including icing conditions. The Global Hawk is a jet-powered UAV taking to the skies over Afghanistan. Still under development, it is at the same stage the Predator was when it first flew over Bosnia. The Global Hawk operates around 60,000 feet, and its suite of sensors is akin to what the U-2 reconnaissance plane carries. Global Hawk does not carry a very sophisticated signal intelligence system, Weatherington said. But, tests show the Global Hawk has great potential in this area and the Air Force continues to develop its full capability. Persistence is a unique capability for UAVs, Weatherington said. The Predator can stay in the air for up to 40 hours. The Global Hawk -- at ranges measured in thousands of miles -- can loiter in an area for more than 24 hours. So what's up for the future in UAVs? The Air Force and Navy are designing and testing combat UAVs. The Army is developing a tactical UAV called Shadow 200. This will give leaders "over-the-hill" surveillance capabilities. The Marine Corps has Dragon Eye, a small, hand launched UAV that can give small-unit leaders a picture of the battleground. Some UAVs under development will be "as small as your hand," Weatherington said. "In the future it may be that a small UAV could fly into the window of a building, land at some innocuous location and observe activities." Faster than you can say "Operation PHEONIX"... Pentagon Predators Join Search for DC Snipers Tuesday, October 15, 2002 WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Pentagon has joined the search for the Beltway Sniper. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld agreed Tuesday evening to the FBI's request to use a military surveillance aircraft in the hunt for the killer, a senior defense official said. The plan calls for having military pilots fly reconnaissance flights accompanied by federal agents, who would relay any collected information to authorities on the ground, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. A main objective is to improve communication among investigators. Authorities had considered using a Predator unmanned aerial vehicle, but decided to use manned aircraft instead, officials said. The help will be provided in a way meant to comply with the Posse Comitatus Act -- a 19th century law that bans the military from domestic law enforcement [AKA MARTIAL LAW!]. That means the military will relay data to law enforcement and not decide on its own what targets to watch, the official said. Defense officials told Fox News Channel that a special Army reconnaissance aircraft called an RC-7, based at Fort Bliss, Texas, would be sent to Washington. The aircraft is a modified DeHavilland DHC-7, adjusted to carry advance optics and communications gear for collecting intelligence on the ground, and it also carries advanced communications equipment to share with ground-based units. Currently, it's operated by six-man crews from the 204th Military Intelligence Battalion out of Fort Bliss, Texas. They are often used in counter narcotics operations in Latin America. The aircraft would perform general reconnaissance, such as looking for or tracking the light-colored van authorities say was seen at one or more of the shooting sites. Pentagon participation also could involve a system of sensors that could detect flashes of gunfire on the ground, the official said. More than half a dozen agencies already are working the case, a series of 11 random rifle attacks in 13 days that has killed nine people and seriously wounded two others, including 2 FBI intelligence agents dead. All but one of the attacks have been in neighboring suburbs in Maryland and Virginia. One was just inside Washington at the Maryland border. In two recent killings, police threw up a dragnet near the shooting site, blocking off streets and expressway ramps and stopping traffic to check vehicles. The assailant slipped away. Another official, who also discussed the matter on condition of anonymity, said that at the request of investigators, the Army has started searching its records for people trained as snipers for any former or current service member who might be involved in the shootings. Law enforcement officials have not said they suspect anyone from the services. Experts have said the shooter also could be a hunter, a target shooter, someone with law enforcement experience, and so on. Police from counties where the attacker has struck are participating in the joint investigation as well as both state police forces, Washington's metropolitan police, the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. By law the military is limited in the ways it can engage in domestic law enforcement, although state governors can call up National Guard troops for such missions. Federal investigators refused Tuesday to rule out the possibility that organized terrorist groups are behind the shootings that have left some residents apprehensive all around the nation's capital. "The communities are terrorized," said the homeland security director, Tom Ridge, and said federal investigators don't know whether the sniper might be a domestic or international terrorist or is working alone. Asked whether there were links to Al Qaeda or other foreign terrorists, Ridge said, "I don't think we can foreclose that. Certainly, nobody in the FBI or the White House has foreclosed that." Fox News Channel's Bret Baier and the Associated Press contributed to this report.
Faux puts DC sniper movie "Phone" on hold as Pentagon snipers terrorize DC for REAL Yahoo! News HOLLYWOOD (Variety) - Twentieth Century Fox has elected to postpone indefinitely the release of director Joel Schumacher's sniper thriller "Phone Booth," while a real-life gunman terrorizes residents around the nation's capital. "In light of recent events, we are delaying the release of 'Phone Booth,"' said Flo Grace, a spokeswoman for the studio. "We don't have a new date yet." The movie was scheduled to be released Nov. 15. "Phone Booth" centers on a man who answers a ringing pay phone and discovers he's in the gunsight of a sniper who plans to kill him if he hangs up. Insiders at Fox say the $12 million picture may be released early in 2003, though the situation is still fluid. The film stars Irish actor Colin Farrell and "24" TV star Kiefer Sutherland. It was directed by Joel Schumacher, who has shot a string of flops in recent years, including "Bad Company" and "Batman & Robin." In a review published last month, Daily Variety said "Phone Booth" was "simple and surprise-deficient" and would have been better suited to a half-hour TV slot. The Washington sniper has killed nine people in a wide area around the capital since launching a 15-hour shooting spree earlier this month. Reuters/Variety |
|
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Proving Their Worth Over Afghanistan By Jim Garamone WASHINGTON, April 16, 2002 -- For years, military thinkers have tried to harness the power of unmanned aerial vehicles. Changes in technology mean that members of today's military are able to put that promise to work.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the services' leadership have long recognized the "transformational" capabilities inherent in UAVs. The accomplishments of the Air Force Predator and Global Hawk unmanned aircraft in Afghanistan demonstrate these systems' abilities and point the way to the future. Rumsfeld added over $1 billion to UAV programs in the fiscal 2003 defense budget request to spur progress in these critical capabilities. Unmanned aerial vehicles have many attractions for the military. They can generally be smaller and lighter than manned aircraft because, among other things, they don't need equipment to support a crew. The air vehicle portion of the overall system is also generally cheaper. Today's Predator, for instance, costs about $5 million. Planners are using UAVs for missions too dangerous for manned aircraft. For example, UAVs can be sent to locate surface-to-air missile sites without putting crew members in harm's way. Right now the ability to "park" a UAV over a trouble spot is one of the systems' greatest advantages, Dyke Weatherington, deputy of the UAV Planning Task Force in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, said in a recent interview. "These systems … park over the bad guys, watch them continually, never give them a break from (our monitoring) their activities and severely limit their ability to mount an effective threat," he said. He said operations in the Balkans demonstrated that an airborne video surveillance system "provides what a warfighter wants -- a persistent CNN 'eye-in-the-sky' sort of capability." Balkan operations also suggested the logical next step in UAV fielding -- arming the platforms. Operators would see targets of opportunity with UAVs but have to call in manned aircraft to attack them, Weatherington said. "In many cases, we either couldn't get strikes to the target in time or the manned aircraft couldn't find that target the UAV had found," he said. "UAV" really applies to any airborne system that has no operator or pilot aboard. This runs the gamut from small systems literally launched by a rubber band, like the Marine Corps' Dragon Eye, to the jet-powered Global Hawk. There are two general classes of UAVs. The Predator is an example of one type. Ground-bound pilots in a control van use a yoke, stick and rudder to fly the aircraft, Weatherington said. The Global Hawk is an example of an autonomous UAV, the second type. Specialists program an onboard computer that controls the aircraft flight from point-to-point. The Global Hawk takes off and lands itself. While humans oversee the programming and tell the UAV where to go, it's the onboard computer that actually controls the air vehicle in flight. The military has about 200 UAVs of all types today. Weatherington said the number is projected to rise dramatically in the next five years to around 500. One exciting new capability that may enter the force is the unmanned combat aerial vehicle. The UCAV, as it is called, is the first UAV designed from the start to carry weapons. Weatherington said the vehicle will have stealth capabilities and will be designed to go into dangerous areas and destroy targets. Both the Navy and Air Force are working this program from slightly different approaches. The Air Force's cost goal is to bring the UCAV in at about one-third the price of the Joint Strike Fighter, he said. The Air Force demonstrated the UCAV's viability by arming a Predator with Hellfire anti-armor missiles. Weatherington said the Air Force is also looking at other weapons to place on other UAV aircraft including the bigger, follow-on Predator B. The Air Force envisions using Predators and Predator Bs as hunter-killer teams. Most Defense Department and service officials believe UAVs are truly transformational. The systems help other manned systems and give operators more capabilities at a reduced cost. The systems, Weatherington said, represent significant opportunities for the U.S. military to improve the way it conducts operations around the world. Service members would be freed to make critical decisions while letting UAVs do many of both the dull and dangerous missions. Parking UAVs over bad guys for days or weeks and never giving them a chance to do something unseen is truly transformational, he said. "The other aspect is that we are doing that without putting service members at risk," he concluded. "Those capabilities really argue that it's appropriate to invest in this technology." A RQ1L Predator from the 57th Wing Operations Group makes its way back to the hanger at a forward base in the area of Operation Enduring Freedom. The aircraft flew a reconnaissance mission over Afghanistan, Feb. 14, 2002. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Chief Warrant Officer 2 William D Crow (Click photo for screen-resolution image; high-resolution image available.) Airman 1st Class John D. Clark from the 15th Reconnaissance Squadron, Nellis Air Force Base, Nev. performs maintenance on a Predator UAV after its return from a reconnaissance flight over Afghanistan. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Chief Warrant Officer 2 William D Crow (Click photo for screen-resolution image; high-resolution image available.) A Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle sits in a hanger after its arrival at Langley Air Force Base, Va. June 21, 2001. The aircraft flew non-stop from Edwards Air Force, Calif., to demonstrate its capabilities to NATO representatives at the Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic headquarters. Photo by TSgt Jack Braden (Click photo for screen-resolution image; high-resolution image available.) Recovery crews tow a Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle to a hangar after its arrival at Langley Air Force Base June 21, 2001. Photo by TSgt Jack Braden (Click photo for screen-resolution image; high-resolution image available.) |
|
Pentagon MASCAL exercise simulates scenarios in preparing for emergencies Military District of Washington - News: Contingency planning The fire and smoke from the downed passenger aircraft billows from the Pentagon courtyard. Defense Protective Services Police seal the crash sight. Army medics, nurses and doctors scramble to organize aid. An Arlington Fire Department chief dispatches his equipment to the affected areas. Don Abbott, of Command Emergency Response Training, walks over to the Pentagon and extinguishes the flames. The Pentagon was a model and the "plane crash" was a simulated one. The Pentagon Mass Casualty Exercise, as the crash was called, was just one of several scenarios that emergency response teams were exposed to Oct. 24-26 in the Office of the Secretaries of Defense conference room. On Oct. 24, there was a mock terrorist incident at the Pentagon Metro stop and a construction accident to name just some of the scenarios that were practiced to better prepare local agencies for real incidents. To conduct the exercise, emergency personnel hold radios that are used to rush help to the proper places, while toy trucks representing rescue equipment are pushed around the exercise table. Cards are then passed out to the various players designating the number of casualties and where they should be sent in a given scenario. To conduct the exercise, a medic reports to Army nurse Maj. Lorie Brown a list of 28 casualties so far. Brown then contacts her superior on the radio, Col. James Geiling, a doctor in the command room across the hall. Geiling approves Brown's request for helicopters to evacuate the wounded. A policeman in the room recommends not moving bodies and Abbott, playing the role of referee, nods his head in agreement. "If you have to move dead bodies to get to live bodies, that's okay," Abbott says as the situation unfolds. Geiling remarked on the importance of such exercises. "The most important thing is who are the players?" Geiling said. "And what is their modus operandi?" Brown thought the exercise was excellent preparation for any potential disasters. "This is important so that we're better prepared," Brown said. "This is to work out the bugs. Hopefully it will never happen, but this way we're prepared." An Army medic found the practice realistic. "You get to see the people that we'll be dealing with and to think about the scenarios and what you would do," Sgt. Kelly Brown said. "It's a real good scenario and one that could happen easily." A major player in the exercise was the Arlington Fire Department. Our role is fire and rescue," Battalion Chief R.W. Cornwell said. "We get to see how each other operates and the roles and responsibilities of each. You have to plan for this. Look at all the air traffic around here." Each participant was required to fill out an evaluation form after the training exercise. We go over scenarios that are germane to the Pentagon," Jake Burrell of the Pentagon Emergency Management Team said. 'You play the way you practice. We want people to go back to their organizations and look at their S.O.P. (standard operating procedure) and see how they responded to any of the incidents." Burrell has coordinated these exercises for four years and he remarked that his team gets better each year. Abbott, in his after action critique, reminded the participants that the actual disaster is only one-fifth of the incident and that the whole emergency would run for seven to 20 days and might involve as many as 17 agencies. The emergency to a certain extent is the easiest part, Abbott said. He reminded the group of the personal side of a disaster. Families wanting to come to the crash sight for closure. In this particular crash there would have been 341 victims. (Ryan is a staff writer with the Fort Myer Military Community's Pentagram.) PENTAGON Official Facts & Figures U.S. Department of Defense The Pentagon—a building, institution, and symbol—was conceived at the request of Brigadier General Brehon B. Sommervell, Chief of the Construction Division of the Office of the Quartermaster General, on a weekend in mid-July 1941. The purpose was to provide a temporary solution to the War Department's critical shortage of space. The groundbreaking ceremony took place on September 11, 1941. The building was dedicated on January 15, 1943, nearly 16 months to the day after the groundbreaking.
|
|
New World Empire Strikes First Lockheed Martin-Boeing - RQ-3A "DarkStar" In the 1990s, the USAF integrated various Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) systems into one, inter-connected "system of systems" that provided the nation's military forces with the information needed to conduct successful operations. The Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) added a new element to the ISR system. Planners envisioned using UAVs to perform a wide range of missions, such as the Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD), but they designed the first UAVs to conduct ISR missions. In response to a Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office (DARO) requirement for UAVs with long-endurance, reconnaissance, surveillance, and target acquisition capability, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) developed two High-Altitude Endurance (HAE) UAVs: the RQ-3A "DarkStar" and the RQ-4A "Global Hawk." Developed under a cost-saving, single Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD), both UAVs used the same ground station.
Unlike early systems which used traditional photographic film or which stored imagery in on-board recorders for analysis after landing, DarkStar used digital links to transmit images directly to the ground station or to satellites. This capability allowed DarkStar to provide military decision makers with nearly real time information.
DarkStar first flew on 29 March 1996 at Edwards AFB, California,
but it crashed during its second flight on 22 April 1996. The second DarkStar,
which was modified to increase its stability, first flew on 29 June 1998.
During this 44-minute flight, it successfully executed a fully automated
flight from takeoff to landing using the Global Positioning System (GPS),
and it reached an altitude of 5,000 feet. On 11 January 1999, the second
DarkStar completed its first high-altitude flight and reached an altitude
of 25,000 feet on a 2-hour, 37-minute flight. Two additional DarkStar
vehicles were completed, but they never flew. In late January 1999, the
Department of Defense terminated the DarkStar UAV program because of budget
cuts. The USAF Museum received this DarkStar, the only surviving one actually
to have flown, in December 1999.
SPECIFICATIONS PERFORMANCE |
|
Boeing AGM-86B Air-Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM)
The AGM-86B is an unmanned air-to-ground nuclear missile designed to be launched from aircraft such as the B-52 or B-1. The wings, tail surfaces, and engine inlet are folded while the ALCM is being carried but are deployed upon launching. Powered by a small turbofan engine which starts when the missile is released, the AGM-86B flies at low altitudes. The slim wings are sufficient because the ALCM does not takeoff or land and flies only at high speed. The missile is programmed to fly to a preselected target by inertial guidance and by comparison techniques through which prerecorded geographical features are matched with the terrain "seen" by the missile's sensors. Each B-52 carries at least 12 AGM-86Bs permitting a bomber force to launch them in large numbers, saturating defenses. Further hampering enemy defenses are the missile's small size and low-altitude flight profile which make it hard to detect on radar. The AGM-86B became operational in December 1982. This AGM-86B, equipped for mid-air retrieval for economic reasons, made five test flights between January 1980 and October 1982, accumulating over 20 hours of free flight time. It was acquired by the USAF Museum in February 1983. SPECIFICATIONS PERFORMANCE |
|
Teledyne Ryan AQM-91A "Compass Arrow" This high-flying, unmanned photo reconnaissance aircraft is an early example of stealth technology. Developed in the late 1960s to fly deep into China, Compass Arrow was to cruise at nearly 15 miles altitude while taking photos showing ground details as small as one foot in size. After air-launching from a DC-130E Hercules aircraft, Compass Arrow navigated automatically, but it also could be flown manually by an operator in the launch aircraft. To present a small radar image and avoid surface-to-air missiles, Compass Arrow's vertical surfaces are canted inward, and its body uses radar-absorbing materials. The engine is mounted on top to reduce its heat signature from below, and the aircraft also carries anti-radar electronics. Compass Arrow was ready to deploy by late 1971, but friendlier U.S. relations
with China made it unnecessary. The AQM-91A never became operational.
However, lessons learned from its development contributed to later stealth
fighters, bombers, and unmanned aerial vehicles.
SPECIFICATIONS PERFORMANCE Isn't it funny how loony Pentagon/Ford built NAZI Buzz Bomb Cruise Missles DURING World War Two. General/President Ike played golf with Wall Street lawyer Senator Prescott Bush who was ARRESTED THREE TIMES under Trading With The Enemy Act DURING World War Two for supplying NAZI Germany with 1/2 of their steel production used to murder 55-million people....
The JB-2 is a U.S. made copy of the famous German V-1 surface-to-surface pilotless flying bomb first used against England on June 12-13, 1944. The airframe for the JB-2 was built by the Republic Aviation Corporation and the engine by the Ford Motor Company from drawings prepared at Wright Field, using dimensions taken from the remains of several V-1s brought from Germany. About 1,000 JB-2s were built for the Army and Navy. Production delivery began in January 1945, but it was cancelled on VJ Day. The first one to be test flown in the U.S. was launched at Eglin Field, Fla., in October 1944. Just before the end of the war, JB-2s were placed aboard an aircraft carrier en route to the Pacific for possible use in the proposed invasion of the Japanese home islands. Although the JB-2 was never used in combat, it provided valuable data for the design and construction of more advanced weapons. The JB-2 on display was obtained from the Continental Motors Corporation, Muskegan, Mich. in December 1956.
SPECIFICATIONS
PERFORMANCE
|
|
The Kettering Aerial Torpedo, nicknamed the "Bug", was invented by Charles F. Kettering of Dayton. It was developed and built by Dayton-Wright Airplane Company in 1918 for the U.S. Army Signal Corps. The unmanned Bug took off from a dolly which ran along a track. It was stabilized on course toward its target by a system of internal pre-set vacuum pneumatic and electrical controls. After a predetermined length of time, a control closed an electrical circuit which shut off the engine. The wings were then released, causing the Bug to plunge to earth where its 180 pounds of explosive detonated on impact. Although initial testing was successful, World War I ended before the Bug could enter combat. Fewer than 50 Bugs had been completed at the time of the Armistice. After the war, the Air Service conducted additional tests on the weapon, but scarcity of funds in the 1920s halted further development. The full-size reproduction of the Bug was built by Museum personnel. It was placed on display in 1964. SPECIFICATIONS PERFORMANCE |
|
1/3rd of an SR-71, the world's fastest jet aircraft... Lockheed D-21B Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)
The Lockheed D-21 is an unmanned or "drone" aircraft designed to carry out high-speed, high-altitude strategic reconnaissance missions over hostile territory. It is a product of the Lockheed "Skunk Works" program that developed the A-12, YF-12, and SR-71 "Blackbird" manned aircraft in the 1960's. Originally, the D-21 was designed to be launched from the back of a modified A-12 (redesignated M-12) carrier aircraft. The first flight of the D-21/M-12 combination took place on December 22, 1964, but the first D-21 release from an M-12 did not occur until March 5, 1966. two more launches were successful, but on July 30, 1966, a D-21 collided with the M-12 after release, destroying both aircraft and resulting in the death of one of the M-12's crew members. No further "piggyback" launches were attempted. A new launch system was developed using modified B-52H aircraft as carriers. The new D-21 configuration (designated D-21B) had dorsal mounting hooks for carriage under the B-52's wing, and a solid rocket booster for the initial acceleration required to start the ramjet engine. The first launch from a B-52 took place on November 6, 1967, but the D-21 crashed. Several flights followed in 1968 with mixed success. The first operational launch was on November 9, 1969, but the D-21B was lost. Several successful operational missions were flown over the next two years, but the D-21 program was highly classified and details have not been released. The program was canceled in 1971 and the D-21s were placed in storage. The D-21B on display (#535) was retired to the Museum in 1993. SPECIFICATIONS PERFORMANCE |
|
RYAN AQM-34N RECONNAISSANCE DRONE
In the mid-1960s, Ryan Aeronautical Co. answered the need for a system to conduct reconnaissance and gather intelligence without putting aircrew members in danger. The answer became more than 20 different variations of their proven Model 147 Firebee unmanned subsonic target drone. The Model 147H (USAF designation AQM-34N) became operational with Strategic Air Command reconnaissance units in the late 1960s. With a wingspan three times that of the original Firebee, it could operate above 60,000 ft. It was the first of the Model 147 family to carry fuel in its wings (wet wings) which gave it a range in excess of 2,400 miles. Several electronic, maneuverability, and low observability (stealth-like) systems were included in the payload to reduce vulnerability to interceptors and surface-to-air missiles. Between March 1967 and July 1971, 138 missions with AQM-34Ns were launched from DC-130 aircraft and flown under preprogrammed control in and out of hostile territory. Some were lost over China and were displayed in propaganda photos of the day. Almost 65% were recovered, many with the Mid-Air Retrieval System (MARS), a specially equipped helicopter that "snatched" the drone while in parachute descent. The AQM-34N on display was retired from active service in 1973.
Span:32 ft. Length: 30 ft. Height: 6 ft. 8 in. Weight: 3,830 lbs. maximum Armament: None Engine: J69-T-41A turbojet with 1,920 lbs. thrust
PERFORMANCE
|
|
Technically, the RQ-1 Predator not just an aircraft but an entire system. Developed as an Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD), this system consisted of four unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), a ground control station, a satellite communications terminal, and 55 personnel. The Predator UAV before you-the most recognizable part of the system-provided military commanders with an Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) platform capable of flying over dangerous areas for extended periods without risk to a human pilot. In January 1994, the Department of Defense awarded a contract for ten Predator aircraft to General Atomics Aeronautical Systems of San Diego, California, and the first Predator flew just six months later in July 1994. Within a year, Predators deployed to Europe, where they proved their value in operations over Bosnia from July 1995 to March 1996. In April 1996, the Secretary of Defense selected the USAF as the operating service for the RQ-1 Predator system, and the system entered production in August 1997. In subsequent deployments, the Predator continued to prove its value to military leaders. The pre-production version Predator aircraft was designated RQ-1K, but the entire system with all the components was designated the RQ-1A. Powered by a four-cylinder, 81-horsepower Rotax 912 engine, the RQ-1K aircraft could cruise at 87 miles per hour for 16 hours. The production version Predator aircraft was designated the RQ-1L, and it was equipped with a turbo-charged Rotax 914 engine producing 105 horsepower. The production version system carried the designation RQ-1L. The UAV on display is an RQ-1K. In flight, the UAV and its on-board sensors are controlled by the ground crew with a direct data link. However, when the aircraft is flown beyond the range of a direct link, the ground crew maintains control though a satellite data link. The equipment carried in the bottom turret can provide live video, still photographs, or radar imagery in all weather conditions, day or night. Using satellite data links, the information gathered by a Predator can be shared instantaneously with commanders around the world. Designed and built to be easily deployed worldwide, the Predator systems operated from Indian Springs Air Force Auxiliary Field, Nevada. In February 2001, the Predator demonstrated a new potential. In a test program, it successfully fired a laser-guided Lockheed Martin AGM-114 Hellfire anti-tank missile at a stationary target. Technical Notes: |
|
Any private/personal airplane can be converted into a covert robot, such as what crashed into the White House in 1994... 
The QU-22B was to be an unmanned airborne relay for the
"Igloo White" operation during the Vietnam
War. Igloo White placed and monitored sensors
to detect traffic along the main enemy supply line, the "Ho Chi Minh
Trail." Although the QU-22B performed well as a signal relay, all
operational flights in Southeast Asia carried a pilot onboard due to equipment
reliability problems. Modified
from the civilian Beech Model 36 Bonanza under the "Pave Eagle II"
program, the 27 QU-22Bs delivered to the USAF contained several changes
for military service. The QU-22B carried a large generator above the engine
to power its electronic equipment and additional fuel in extended wing
tip tanks for increased range. Its remote control equipment allowed the
QU-22B to be flown directly by an onboard pilot or as an unmanned drone. In 1972, after the loss of several aircraft, the USAF cancelled the QU-22 program. SPECIFICATIONS PERFORMANCE Remote Control QU-22 Bombs Jewish Quarter in Hollywood "Not a Terrorist Attack!" says Department of Homeland Security Copyright Joe Vialls
At 1000 hrs Greenwich Mean Time on 7 June 2003, Australia's early television news ran some extraordinary Japanese video footage showing a Beech 36 single-engine aircraft rolling into a perfectly controlled 85-degree dive overhead Hollywood, California. With its wings rock-steady, and without the slightest trace of yaw, the Beechcraft accelerated swiftly before plunging vertically into an apartment block in Fairfax, a predominantly Orthodox Jewish quarter located close to the famous Hollywood Sunset Strip. Speed of impact was approximately 250 miles per hour. Twenty minutes later, stunned by the audacity and accuracy of the attack dive, I called the network and asked if they could send me a few frames of the footage by email, because my VCR was not switched on at the time. "Not a problem," the Chief of Staff said, "but why are you so interested in the accident?" I told her, which was probably a very unwise thing to do. Within minutes, network "policy" got in the way and I was abruptly disconnected. Forty minutes after that, when the other news networks went to air, the startling Japanese footage had vanished completely; replaced by low-angle ground shots of Jewish volunteer paramedics helping out at the crash site. The FBI initially sent in counterterrorism, hazardous materials and bomb squad units, but after an urgent telephone call from the Department of Homeland Security, changed its approach completely, stating instead that "a preliminary investigation has determined the crash Friday afternoon was an accident". This absurd and completely premature judgement was swiftly backed up by local Californian Councilman Jack Weiss, who claimed "This was not a terrorist incident." Just how ridiculously premature this decision was, can best be judged by the statement of NTSB investigator Tealeye Cornejo, who said a few hours later the same day, "no flight recorder has been found in the wreckage, and investigators have not yet determined who owns the plane". To make things worse, the alleged [but unknown and unseen] pilot failed to contact the Southern California Terminal Radar Approach Control facility, as ordered by the Santa Monica control tower. Now let me see if I have this right so far: An aircraft nose-dives like a crazed German Stuka right into the middle of a pack of "vulnerable" Jews, who in turn are located right in the middle of Hollywood, the most hated propaganda filmmaking facility in America. The Department of Homeland Security does not know the name of the pilot or the owner of the Beechcraft 36, but does know that the aircraft failed to follow direct orders issued by the Santa Monica control tower. Then the Department of Homeland Security declares it was merely an accident. Does this make any sense to you? Of course it doesn't, because the entire sequence of events shrieks "terrorism" at anyone with an IQ higher than 50. Unfortunately, the Office of Homeland Security faces a problem so serious that, as you may have already noticed from time to time, it feels obliged to tell outright lies. Many Americans have become so sensitized to "terrorist" air crashes in the wake of 9-11 that they now travel by Amtrak or by automobile, thereby accidentally driving the American domestic airlines ever deeper into debt, with many operators now approaching complete bankruptcy. So if even a single small aircraft crash is linked to terrorism, as was the case with the Cessna flown into the Bank America building in Florida for example, about one million more Americans join the ever expanding throng of those who permanently refuse to fly. This is very bad news for airline investors and Wall Street alike. There are only three ways a light aircraft like the Beechcraft 36 in Hollywood can return to earth in accidental circumstances. If the engine fails or runs out of fuel, the aircraft glides at a relatively shallow angle of about 30 degrees, allowing the pilot time [and a little distance] to pick a suitable landing site. If the engine fails and the pilot accidentally loses control and stalls the aircraft completely, it will fall to earth in a spin, unless or until it is physically recovered from that spin by the pilot. If the aircraft suffers major structural failure in mid air [lost or broken wing or elevator or vertical stabilizer], it will flutter towards the ground like a falling leaf. None of these three accidental conditions applied in any way to the Beechcraft 36, which dived rock-steady at 85 degrees and 250 m.p.h. into Hollywood, with its engine screaming at full power.
So who was the poor sap who buckled himself in at Santa Monica and took off on this suicide mission? For those who have studied the Cessna crashes into the White House on 9-11 [1994] and Bank America building on 5 January 2002, or the Rockwell crash into the Pirelli Tower in Milan on 18 April 2002, the most likely conclusion is that the pilot was either dead before take-off, or not on board the aircraft at all. In all three earlier cases no-one saw any of the alleged pilots board the aircraft, no-one saw them take off, and there are no existing control tower tapes that record any of the three voices. In like manner, none of the three pilots [Corder, Bishop and Fasulo] had any record of instability or lack of flying discipline, nor any motive to embark on a "suicide" mission. What is especially intriguing, is that the aircraft used for the vertical dive on the Jewish Quarter, is "officially" one of the exact types converted for remote control use during the Vietnam War. Modified from the civilian Beech Model 36 Bonanza under the "Pave Eagle II" program, the military-designated "QU-22s" contained several changes for military service. The QU-22 carries an extra generator to power its electronic equipment, and additional fuel in extended wing tip tanks for increased endurance. Its remote control equipment allows the QU-22 to be flown directly by an onboard pilot or as an unmanned drone. The aircraft can stay airborne for 10 hours unmanned, or for 8 hours if the detachable tip tanks are removed. The last QU-22 operational mission in SEA was flown in September 1972. After use in military service most of these fully-equipped aircraft were placed in the civilian market, with one changing hands as recently as late 2002.
The most extraordinary thing about the Hollywood crash was the complete lack of media fuss. Now think about this very carefully, people, think about it. When did you last [or ever] hear of a catastrophe striking a Jewish community, without an immediate media knee-jerk reaction demanding retribution and compensation? If a Palestinian so much as scratches a car in Tel Aviv with his bicycle, he is likely to be fined or shot dead, before the brave Jewish soldiers move on to demolish his parent's house – after looting it first of course. By comparison with Tel Aviv, Hollywood is a veritable gold mine. Within 12 hours there should have been strident demands for millions of dollars in compensation from the pilot's insurance company, and then from the pilot's parents, children, cousins, and whoever. Following this, Raytheon-Beechcraft should have been asked to contribute a million or two, with Santa Monica airport rushing in to provide free transport and kosher catering. But it never happened, and the entire episode was killed by the media in just a few hours. Exactly why this riveting story was killed so quickly is not too hard to work out. It is a fact [rather than "anti-Semitic" hyperbole] that the largest investors in America's domestic airlines happen to be Jewish-controlled corporations or individuals. Say too much about the Hollywood crash, and watch your airline investments instantly diminish in value as yet another million Americans decide to travel by train or automobile. It is also a fact that the largest investors in the American media and film industries [especially Hollywood] are once again Jewish-controlled corporations or individuals. Say too much about the Hollywood crash, and watch your tourist dollars melt away from southern California like snow in the Spring. But, hey, getting the media to shut down the Hollywood story really isn't a problem. Well, it isn't a problem if you own most of the media as well! The most fascinating questions about the Hollywood Beechcraft 36 attack revolve around who is doing what to whom, and why. If, as seems likely, this was a small-scale "proof of concept" strike, then the attackers have come out decidedly on top. The high-speed denial without evidence by Homeland Security, the FBI, local police an councilors, has confirmed that no-one wants to talk about invisible "Arab hijackers" anymore, and no-one wants to risk their investments any further by linking them to invisible "Terrorists" of any persuasion. The bottom line is simply this: The attackers now know that they can pancake a blazing 200-ton Boeing 767 straight down Sunset Strip at 550 m.p.h. any time they want to, and rely completely on the Department of Homeland Security to pull the FBI off the scent, while Councilman Jack Weiss helpfully claims "This was not a terrorist incident." |
|
The Firebee, originally designated the Q-2, is a high-speed target drone for both surface-to-air and air-to-air missiles. It is used primarily for the testing of newly-developed missiles and for the training of fighter-interceptor pilots whose aircraft are armed with missiles. Capable of being launched from the ground or from an airplane in flight, the Firebee is radio-controlled during its mission by an operator on the ground. Upon being hit by a missile and disabled, or upon completing its mission undamaged, the Firebee is lowered safely to earth by a self-contained parachute. The Firebee on display, the first XQ-2C built and flown, established a record of 25 flights at Holloman AFB, New Mexico, from 1958 to 1960. It was obtained from Ryan for display in May 1960.
SPECIFICATIONS
PERFORMANCE
|
|
How to simulate the RADAR image of a civilian airliner... 
The Quail, originally designated the GAM-72, is an air-launched decoy missile carried by the B-52 strategic bomber. Designed to produce a radar image very similar to that of the B-52 and to fly at approximately the same speed and altitude, the Quail would be used during an actual bombing attack to confuse an enemy's defensive radar network. With both Quails and B-52s penetrating the enemy's air space, it would be difficult for him to distinguish one from the other on his radar. In order to fit inside the B-52 bomb-bay, the Quail is equipped with folding wings. During launch, the wings unfold for flight. The Quail on display was transferred to the Air Force Museum from Eglin AFB, Florida, in January 1961.
SPECIFICATIONS
PERFORMANCE
|
|
Beechcraft MQM-107 "Streaker" Subsonic Aerial Target
The MQM-107 Streaker was developed by the Beech Aircraft Corporation (now Raytheon Aircraft Company) to meet a US Army requirement for a variable speed target for training surface-to-air missile and anti-aircraft artillery crews. Beginning in 1984, the USAF took delivery of an enlarged model for training USAF interceptor crews, the MQM-107B. The Streaker could simulate a variety of targets, mimicking the heat and radar returns of missiles and aircraft. In addition, it could drop chaff and flares to deceive interceptor crews. The Streaker was launched from a ground site with the aid of solid fuel boosters, which accelerated the vehicle to approximately 250 mph in about 2 seconds. A small turbojet engine then took over for the remainder of the flight. The Streaker's route of flight could be programmed prior to launch, or changed during flight by a ground controller using a radio link. At the end of the mission, a parachute recovery system was used for a land or water recovery. The Beech Aerospace Services Company (now Raytheon Aerospace) donated the non-flyable MQM-107 airframe on display to the U.S. Air Force in 1990. SPECIFICATIONS (MQM-107B) PERFORMANCE |
|
 |
|
Observational Science Branch Established in 1945 under NASA`s predecessor, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA), Wallops Flight Facility—one of the oldest launch sites in the world—is located on the Virginia Eastern Shore. Our support of scientific research and orbital and sub-orbital payloads places us at the center of NASA`s space and Earth sciences. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Instrument Development We are interested in what you think, so please send us your comments.
|
NASA IT Security Warning Observational Science Branch; Laboratory for Hydrospheric Processes NASA GSFC/Wallops Flight Facility, Wallops Island VA USA NASA Official 972/Laurence C. Rossi Maintained by Raytheon/Jeff Lee and Raytheon/Carol Purdy |
|
JET PLANE CRASH INTO FED RESERVE BANK SAME DAY AS TREASURY SECRETARY PAUL O'NEIL FIRED... SO-CALLED "EXPERIMENTAL" AIRCRAFT: MY DAD JUST SPENT $500,000 FOR A LARGE TEAM OF PROFESSIONALS TO SPEND 18 MONTHS TO BUILD HIS 400MPH JET-ENGINED "EXPERIMENTAL" CLASSIFICATION 4-SEAT AIRPLANE, SAVING $1,000,000 OFF THE COST OF A FACTORY BUILT PLANE. AIRCRAFT IS BUILT USING STATE OF THE ART "STEALTH" CARBON FIBER ENGINEERING. MY DAD HAS OVER 15,000 HOURS FLIGHT TIME, 90% UNDER IFR CONDITIONS, INCLUDING JET TIME. AIRCRAFT STILL MUST PASS ALL FAA CERTIFICATIONS AND ANNUAL INSPECTIONS, JUST LIKE A FACTORY BUILT PLANE. BASICALLY, A SO-CALLED "HOME BUILT" PLANE MERELY SAVES MONEY BY BYPASSING LEGAL INSURANCE EXPENSES FOR A FACTORY BY REQUIRING 51% OF CONSTRUCTION TO BE COMPLETED BY CERTIFIED FAA "A&P" MECHANICS BUT OUTSIDE THE MAIN FACTORY. I TOURED LANCAIR'S FACTORIES IN OREGON THIS YEAR, AND HELPED BUILD PART OF THIS PLANE UNDER STRICT SUPERVISION (I'M A FORMER US AIR FORCE NUKE SYSTEM SUPERSONIC JET BOMBER "MECHANIC." THIS IS THE SAME PLANE THAT "LUCKY LINDBURG'S GRANDSON USED TO FLY ACROSS THE ATLANTIC OCEAN LAST YEAR FOR THE HISTORY CHANNEL). THESE PLANES ARE MUCH BETTER BUILT THAN TYPICAL FACTORY-BUILT AIRCRAFT (MUCH MORE TIME AND ATTENTION SPENT ON THEM). LANCAIRS, BTW, TYPICALLY HAVE $20,000 INVESTED JUST ON THEIR PAINT JOBS... WHILE A USED FACTORY BUILT PRIVATE PLANE CAN BE BOUGHT FOR UNDER $5,000 READY TO FLY... THERE IS NOTHING "EXPERIMENTAL" ABOUT "EXPERIMENTAL" AIRCRAFT - THEY ALWAYS USE STANDARD AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY. JOHN LEE NOTE THAT US AIR FORCE MUSEUM AT WRIGHT PATTERSON AFB INCLUDES AN OFFICIAL EXHIBIT OF A PRIVATE SMALL PLANE (BEECHCRAFT BONANZA 200MPH 6 SEATER) THAT WAS CONVERTED TO A ROBOT DRONE... I GREW UP FLYING THESE BEECH BONANZAS SINCE MY DAD OWNED SEVERAL OVER THE YEARS BEFORE BUYING BEECH BARON TWIN ENGINED PLANES. THESE "AUTOPILOTS" ON SMALL PLANES ARE EXTREMELY STRONG AND IMPOSSIBLE TO OVERPOWER WHEN THEY MALFUNCTION (IF YOU CAN'T SWITCH OFF THE ELECTRICS YOU WILL CRASH), AS I KNOW FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. THESE ARE NOT "FLY BY WIRE" SYSTEMS, UNLESS YOU CALL MECHANICAL CABLES AND PULLEYS AS "FLY BY WIRE." LOADING A COUPLE OF DEAD BODIES IN A PLANE AND FLYING IT BY REMOTE CONTROL INTO THE "POOR" FEDERAL RESERVE "GOVERNMENT" BUILDING OF "US" TREASURY SECRETARY PAUL O'NEIL IS JUST ANOTHER DIVERSION...?
 US Air Force Museum Experimental aircraft hits Federal Reserve Bank in Miami (and AP HQ) Dec. 6 — A four-seat experimental Four Winds 192 crashed into the Federal Reserve Bank Building in Miami last night. Two Four Winds employees on board the aircraft were killed, but no one on the ground was injured. The crash appears to be an accident; a Four Winds spokesman said there was an in-flight engine fire. More than 100 people were in the one-story bank building attending a holiday party at the time of the accident. Some windows were broken but there appeared to be no structural damage to the building. General aviation accidents rarely cause fatalities on the ground. On average, there are about two fatalities a year involving off-airport bystanders on the ground. The odds of someone on the ground being injured or killed by an aircraft accident are about one in 50 million. Dec 6, 2002 US authorities were quick to play down a terrorist scare after a single engine aircraft crashed into the Federal Reserve Bank building in Miami. Police said the crash, in which the pilot died, appeared to be an accident and that there were no terrorist connections. Investigators are looking into the causes of the accident which happened shortly after the small plane had taken off from Miami Airport. Although there were people inside the building when the aircraft crashed no one was injured. © Airwise 2002 Airwise Forum Air Rage Small plane crashes into Federal Reserve Bank building in Miami December 5, 2002 BY CORALIE CARLSON ASSOCIATED PRESS MIAMI -- A small plane crashed into the Federal Reserve Bank Building on Thursday night, killing the pilot, authorities said. No one inside the building was injured. "We have no information that it was an intentional crash," said Federal Aviation Administration spokeswoman Laura Brown in Washington. "It appears to be an accident." More than 100 people were attending a holiday party in the one-story building when the aircraft slammed into the northeast side of the bank, exploded and burst into flames. The building also houses the Miami bureau of The Associated Press. Based on communications between the pilot and air traffic controllers, Brown said the FAA believes the plane was coming from Marathon in the Florida Keys and traveling to New Smyrna Beach on Florida's central east coast. Another FAA spokeswoman, Kathleen Bergen, called the plane a single-engine aircraft, likely a home-built experimental aircraft. An FBI agent assigned to Miami International Airport was en route to the accident and the agency was keeping in close contact with investigators, said FBI Miami spokeswoman Judy Orihuela. The building is about three miles west of the airport. Some windows were broken but there appeared to be no structural damage. The bank building is just north of the U.S. Southern Command, which oversees U.S. military activities in 32 nations and 12 dependencies in Latin America and the Caribbean. THE PROHIBITION TIMES: PAUL O'NEIL DIRT Treasury secretary, top adviser leaving in major shakeup of Bush's economic team. December 6, 2002: 6:18 PM EST NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and Larry Lindsey, the White House's top economic adviser, both resigned Friday in a dramatic shakeup of the Bush administration's team charged with reviving the nation's troubled economy. White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer reads the president's statement regarding the economic team shake-up and answers a few questions. No successors have been announced. Senior administration officials told CNN that both men were asked to resign by the White House. Presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer wouldn't comment directly when asked if the two were forced out, saying only that each had resigned. "My economic team has worked with me to craft an economic agenda that helped lead the nation out of recession and back into a period of growth," Fleischer said, reading a statement from Bush. "I appreciate Paul O'Neill's and Larry Lindsey's important contributions to making this happen." Fleischer said Lindsey had expressed interest in returning to the private sector and that O'Neill wanted to work to improve health care and education in the Pittsburgh area. Fleischer would not directly answer a question of whether the president thought the change in his economic team would help spur growth for the nation's economy. "I think it's fair to say the president looks at the economy as a matter that's bigger than any one person or any one expert," he said. While some measures show the U.S. economy growing again after last year's brief recession, unemployment remains stubbornly high, manufacturing is still struggling and the stock market looks set to fall for the third year running, something that hasn't happened since 1941. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill The departures were announced after news that the U.S. unemployment rate jumped unexpectedly to 6 percent in November, matching an eight-year high set in April and highlighting the problems with the economy. While stocks rallied after the announcement, with the Dow Jones industrial average ending higher after reversing a 120-point loss, the Dow finished off for the week, ending a streak of eight straight weeks of gains. Republicans in Congress, who were often critical of O'Neill, said the moves were positive for the administration as the new Republican-controlled Senate prepares to convene next year. The departure of O'Neill is seen as a sign of a new push for tax cuts by the administration. But Democrats saw it as a sign of problems with the administration's economic policies. "This confirms that the Bush economic plan is not working," Sen. Kent Conrad, the North Dakota Democrat who is outgoing chairman of the Senate budget committee, said in a statement. "As the news this morning of increased joblessness and earlier reports of exploding deficit and debt reveal, the president's economic policy is a disaster. Obviously, the secretary of the treasury and Mr. Lindsey are being sacrificed to protect the president. Sadly, the removal of these economic officials will do nothing if they are simply replaced with yes-men committed to the president's relentlessly partisan agenda of pushing tax cuts at the expense of all else." Larry Lindsey, former head of the White House National Economic Council O'Neill, the former CEO of Alcoa, and Lindsey, a former Federal Reserve Governor and architect of the tax cut plan President Bush ran on in 2000, are the second and third major members of the administration's economics team to announce a departure in the last four weeks. Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Harvey Pitt submitted his resignation on election night. Possible successors for O'Neill include outgoing Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, and Charles Schwab, founder of the discount brokerage bearing his name, while top contenders for Lindsey's job are R. Glenn Hubbard, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, and Harvard University economist Martin Feldstein, according to political and economic experts. Lindsey was widely expected to leave the administration. The Washington Post reported in early November that Lindsey was making subtle inquiries about returning to private sector work on Wall Street, and that his aides were looking for positions on congressional staffs. O'Neill's departure also has long been predicted. He is generally seen as not being able to get along with Republicans in Congress, as well as not having the support of Wall Street. "O'Neill's gaffs have hurt him. There aren't a lot of Republicans on the Hill who like him. But he seemed to have the president's confidence," Greg Valliere, chief political economist for Charles Schwab Washington Research Group, said recently, before O'Neill's departure was announced. "O'Neill has been more optimistic about the economy and resistant to additional stimulus, so I suppose one could read between lines that he was losing that battle, and the administration is more likely to propose aggressive stimulus now," Alan Levenson, chief economist for T. Rowe Price Associates, told Reuters. O'Neill's letter of resignation to President Bush was brief and gave no reason for the departure. "I hereby resign my position as Secretary of the Treasury. It has been a privilege to serve the nation during these challenging times," it said. "I thank you for that opportunity. I wish you every success as you provide leadership and inspiration for America and the world." Second Body Found in Miami Plane Crash By CORALIE CARLSON December 6, 2002, 6:18 PM EST MIAMI -- A man found dead Friday in a golf course lake was a passenger on a small plane that plowed into the building across the street housing the Federal Reserve Bank, killing the pilot, police said. Medical examiners identified the two men who were aboard the prototype Four Winds 192 that crashed Thursday night but did not immediately release their identities. Their employer, an airplane sales company, identified them as a flight instructor and sales manager. The plane slammed into the northeast side of the bank branch as officials there held a holiday party. No one inside the one-story, 280,000-square-foot building was injured. The building had some broken windows but no structural damage. It was unclear how the passenger's body got out of the plane. Authorities called the crash an accident. Jeff Rahm, president of Four Winds Aircraft in New Smyrna Beach, said Friday that two of the company's employees were killed. "We have no answers," Rahm said. "There was an inflight engine fire and that's all we're able to tell at this time. ... The plane itself was fine, but what engine problems they had, we don't know." He identified the victims as pilot Rick Grannis, a salesman and instructor at the company, and sales manager Garry Williams. Grannis and Williams flew to Marathon Airport on Thursday afternoon to attend a Christmas party of the Young Eagles flying club and show the prototype plane to club members, club president Ed Waldorf said. The building the plane crashed into houses the Miami bureau of The Associated Press as well as the reserve bank branch, which employs 250 people. The aircraft was flying at 5,500 feet when it made a sharp, sudden turn to the southeast for an unknown reason and crashed, National Transportation Safety Board spokesman Alan Yurman said. The pilot had not reported any problems and witnesses did not see any fire from the engine, Yurman said. The Four Winds 192 is described on the company's Web site as a four-seat, single turboprop aircraft with a range of 1,000 miles. [ie, a very expensive jet aircraft] Man found dead on golf course was aboard plane that hit building By ALEX VEIGA MIAMI -- A man found dead Friday in a golf course lake was a passenger on a small plane that plowed into the building housing the Federal Reserve Bank and killed the pilot, police said. Medical examiners did not immediately release the identities of the two men who were aboard the prototype Four Winds 192 that crashed about 8:40 p.m. Thursday. But Jeff Rahm, president of Four Winds Aircraft in New Smyrna Beach, who employed the men, identified them as pilot Rick Grannis, a salesman and instructor, and sales manager Garry Williams. Federal investigators had not found Friday what caused the crash. The pilot did not report any problems, said National Transportation Safety Board spokesman Alan Yurman. Rahm said there was an inflight engine fire. One body was found among the wreckage Thursday night. The second body was found Friday morning in a lake at the Doral Golf Resort & Spa across the street from the bank. Authorities searched the area near the crash after learning that a second person had been aboard the plane, said Detective Robert Williams, a Miami-Dade County police spokesman. The plane slammed into the northeast side of the bank branch during a holiday party, sparking a fire. No one inside the one-story, 280,000-square-foot building was injured. The building had some broken windows but no structural damage. The aircraft was flying at 5,500 feet when it made a sharp, sudden turn to the southeast for an unknown reason and crashed, Yurman said. NTSB investigators were waiting Friday for radar data on the plane's flight. "We're also going to be looking at what injuries these people had to see if there's any indication something might have been going on in the airplane," said Jeff Kennedy, the NTSB's southeast regional director in Miami. Kennedy said investigators won't begin examining the wreckage until next week. The wreckage was moved to a hangar at Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport. Only a wing and a section of the tail were recovered. "The fire consumed most of the fuselage and the heat was intense enough to melt a lot of the metal cage structure of the fuselage," said Steve Smalley, president of Air & Sea Crash Recovery Inc. Grannis and Williams had flown to the Florida Keys on Thursday afternoon to attend a Christmas party of the Young Eagles flying club and show the prototype plane to club members, club president Ed Waldorf said. The building the plane crashed into houses the Miami bureau of The Associated Press as well as the reserve bank branch, which employs 250 people. The Four Winds 192 is described on the company's Web site as a four-seat, single turboprop aircraft with a range of 1,000 miles. The airplane was owned by AAA Aircraft Leasing, Rahm said.  White House kamikazied on 9-11-1994 The 9/11 You Were Never Told About - Part 1 Was the White House attacked by a drone aircraft with a dead pilot?
Joe Vialls, Aeronautical engineer
According to the mainstream media, at about 2300 hrs on 11 September 1994, Frank Eugene Corder stole a single-engine Cessna 150L plane from an airport north of Baltimore, then headed south to Washington, flying over the National Zoological Park and down to the Mall, probably using the Washington Monument as a beacon. As he neared the famed obelisk, he banked a tight U-turn over the Ellipse, came in low over the White House South Lawn, clipped a hedge, skidded across the green lawn that girds the South Portico and crashed into a wall two stories below the presidential bedroom. Spookily perhaps, there is at least one visual indicator that Bishop was probably dead long before his aircraft hit the Bank of America. A Coastguard helicopter patrolling in the local area actually flew alongside the Cessna in an attempt to force the pilot to land, but without success. In the words of the helicopter pilot: "He [Bishop] sat motionless at the controls. He would not look at the helicopter, nor would he respond to radio or hand signals telling him to land his aircraft".
Telemetry as such was not available then, so a shepherd aircraft, usually another Meteor would escort the drone to the entrance to the Range, hold well clear and rejoin after the mission was concluded. As the Meteor F.8 became more available, surplus airframes were also converted into the more sophisticated Meteor U.l6, which made its first drone flight in the September of 1960, with over 200 of the type eventually being 'droned'. More details on RAF Llanbedr here. Evidence Proves Milan Skyscraper Crash Was Not An "Accident" Joe Vialls, 19 April 2002
We think your name is Luigi Fasulo, the registered owner of a really neat little Rockwell Commander 112TC, a pocket rocket boasting a 200 horsepower turbocharged engine and a top speed in excess of two hundred miles per hour. We also think that you took off from Locarno in Switzerland, but we cannot be sure about that. And of course they needed your little Rockwell plane because of its high speed, ensuring there would be sufficient inertia to penetrate the financial center before exploding. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The author is a former member of the Society of Licenced Aeronautical Engineers and Technologists, London
This report may be copied unedited onto other websites in the interests of public safety.
Robo-Planes - Unmanned Aircraft Redefines How Military Wages War
By John McWethy
May 1, 2002
ABC NEWS
S P R I N G S A IR F O R C E B A S E, Nev., May 1 — It was a weapon that had never been tried in the battlefield — an unmanned plane built to strike an enemy who would never know it was there. It was the CIA that first tried it, using an Air Force experimental plane. Now the Air Force is ready to try its own.
 |
The urgent needs of Afghanistan have created a huge new appetite for remotely controlled airplanes in the Air Force that are so new, operators are making up different ways to use the aircraft every time they go into action.
"It's a revolution in the way we look at collecting reconnaissance and conducting air operations," say Lt. Col. Doug Boone, deputy chief of the reconnaissance division under the assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition.
The newest UAV, or unmanned aerial vehicle, to be committed to Afghanistan was Global Hawk. It was rushed into service last fall — with its paint barely dry — three years early. And it worked.
"We can differentiate objects the size of a foot in length up to a hundred miles away," said Boone. And using what is called synthetic aperture radar, the aircraft sensors are able to see details through the worst of weather. "Through bad weather … through a snowstorm," said Boone.
What makes it really special, Boone says, is its ability to circle over a battlefield like Afghanistan at the edge of space for up to 24 hours at a time — five times longer on a target than the manned U-2 spy plane it will eventually replace.
"With one aircraft, I do the job of possibly three aircraft by keeping it airborne longer," said Maj.Paul Daly who now flies Global Hawk from a dark portable command center that can be hundreds or thousands of miles away from the airplane.
The Air Force now has just two Global Hawks operating overseas: one flying over Afghanistan, one over the Philippines. A third crashed because a bolt was inserted backward. Each plane costs about $35 million. All the planes the Air Force now has are still considered experimental. They have to yet to receive the first "production" model.
At a lower altitude, with less sophisticated sensors and at one-tenth the cost — about $4 million apiece — is the Predator, the most seasoned unmanned reconnaissance plane in the Air Force. More than 70 have been built. Twenty-two have been shot down or have crashed.
Pilot: 'Front Seat to the War'
Pilots control the aircraft and the satellite-linked video from the ground. Predator has played a major role in Afghanistan helping to spot and track enemy positions.
"You pretty much get the front seat to the war. You're right there. You're watching things happen real time," said one Predator pilot at Indian Springs Air Force Base in Nevada, who asked only to be identified by his call sign, "Foo."
In the early days of the air campaign over Afghanistan, Air Force engineers found a way to send video from Predator's cameras directly to AC-130 gunships circling in the region. That allowed the gunship aircrews to see their targets long before they got into the area, to shoot quickly and get out.
War in Afghanistan Pushed Production
The Air Force is now rushing to build a bigger version of the Predator, called Predator B. Before Sept. 11, last year the Air Force had little interest. Now, officials say, they cannot move fast enough.
Though the CIA did use the smaller Predator in Afghanistan to shoot small anti-tank missiles at suspected al Qaeda leaders, the aircraft could carry only a single 100-pound missile under each wing. Air Force officials are hoping the Predator B can carry the equivalent of 20 such missiles.
"This is physically larger than the other aircraft and it can fly about twice the altitude," said Boone. "And it can certainly carry about 10 times the weight."
The Air Force is exploring the use of small satellite-guided bombs, 250 pounds apiece, with the Predator B. With the armed Predator B, Air Force officials said they could both hunt for a suspected target — monitoring activity for 24 hours — and when the moment was right, they could shoot immediately instead of having to wait crucial minutes for a manned fighter or bomber to arrive on the scene. "Predator B would pack a nasty wallop," one official said.
Incentives for Pilots to Fly From Ground
For the pilots of all these remotely controlled aircraft, there may be moments of excitement, but what they do is definitely not real flying. Air Force leadership is now having to force some young pilots and navigators out of the cockpit to fill the growing need for people who can fly these robotic aircraft.
"There is nothing like the freedom and exhilaration of being in a real aircraft," said one young pilot who was ordered to take the new assignment. "This does take away a little bit of that thrill, but it is no less important."
The Air Force is looking at new incentives — mostly more money — to keep pilots happy who are now doing their flying on the ground.
The Pentagon plans to spend more than $1 billion on remotely controlled planes next year. Unmanned "jet" fighters are the next step.
Some pilots, unhappy about this trend, bitterly complain that the Air Force will never be the same.
|
ITN - Robot plane flies Pacific unmanned
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 made flew cross 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 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. |
|
Automated airplane landing systems are advanced enough to bring a hijacked airplane 'home' Technology now exists that could allow a ground crew to override and direct the flight path of a hijacked plane. Following the Sept. 11 attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center, President George W. Bush called for the creation of a system that would enable air traffic controllers on the ground to assume remote control of the aircraft and direct it to a safe landing at a nearby airport. The military has employed this capability since the 1950s. Modifying and implementing the technology for use on passenger carrying aircraft in the United States would involve significant capital outlay, research and testing. But from an engineering standpoint, landing an aircraft automatically is a relatively simple matter. “Autoland” systems have been in wide commercial use in different parts of the world since the 1980s. Auto landings are routinely performed thousands of times a day throughout the world. How the system worksLanding categories are broken down by minimum cloud heights, also known as the “ceiling," and the amount of horizontal visibility. There are three different categories of landing systems:
In all three categories of approach, the Flight Management System is entirely capable of landing the aircraft and, in some CAT IIIc-equipped aircraft such as the Boeing 747-400, capable of applying the brakes after touchdown and stopping the aircraft as well. As for equipping an airliner for such use, the primary drawbacks are the mechanical systems, the flaps and landing gear, whose actuators are usually mechanical levers and/or switches in the cockpit. Retrofitting aircraft to allow for remote activation of these flight critical devices is possible but would be very expensive. The bottom lineIt is technically possible to create a system to perform remotely commanded return flights of a hijacked airliner. Onboard digital command, control and display equipment can easily share data with, and accept commands from, ground control stations. Little input beyond the initial command to enter safe return flight and the ultimate destination are needed. Costs of retrofitting the existing airline fleet? Estimates range from $10 billion to more than $300 billion spent over a period of 10 years. The most pragmatic approach? Design and install such systems into aircraft under development, and on current production aircraft design and install electronic interfaces and overrides. History on remote controlControlling the aircraft from the ground is nothing new. The military has been flying obsolete high performance fighter aircraft as target drones since the 1950s. In fact the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) had at its disposal a number of U.S. Air Force General Dynamics F-106 Delta Dart fighter aircraft configured to be remotely flown into combat as early as 1959 under the auspices of a program know as SAGE. These aircraft could be started, taxied, taken off, flown into combat, fight, and return to a landing entirely by remote control, withhuman intervention needed only to fuel and re-arm them. To this day, drone aircraft are remotely flown from Air Force and Navy bases all over the country to provide targets for both airborne and ground based weapons platforms. The data links, which could be used for remotely controlling digital airborne flight control systems in commercial aircraft, are already in wide use. Known as ACARS (Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System), this system is widely used to report everything from position and fuel burn, weather and flight plan information to ground stations. ACARS also has the capability of sending data to the aircraft. Using this bi-directional data link would allow both uploading digital control inputs to control the aircraft as well as the potential to download and remotely monitor the digital aircraft displays. Progress in TechnologyIn the past 20 years, progress in the field of avionics (AVIation electrONICS) has given end users the ability to safely navigate and communicate to and from virtually any point on, or for that matter above, the earth. The most significant development is the fielding and proliferation of a satellite based navigation infrastructure, or Global Positioning System (GPS) originally intended for use by the U.S. military. GPS utilizes a “constellation” of satellites — 24 of which are in active use with three launched as spares, to provide incredibly accurate position information to end users. Paralleling the widening acceptance of both the burgeoning GPS industry as well as the exponential increases in computer processing capabilities were two major developments in airborne navigation and display. Cathode ray tube (CRT) displays, collectively known as Electronic Flight Information Systems (EFIS), were first fielded for civilian use in 1985. EFIS displays are essentially airborne computer monitors with the ability to “composite” information from a number of sources into a single display, something that cannot be done with traditional electro-mechanical instruments. In essence, EFIS allows the crew to distill available information down to what a pilot needs to know at a particular time. The downside of these displays is their expense: An 8-by-10 inch CRT tube used in a Boeing 747 class aircraft costs approximately $234,076, according to the 2002 Rockwell Collins price list. A 747 has six of these displays installed. A 'highly evolved autopilot'As “glass cockpits," as EFIS instrument panels called, gained acceptance, engineers designed flight management system (FMS) hardware and software that utilized faster and faster onboard computers to manage more and more onboard tasks. FMS hardware is essentially a highly evolved autopilot. But where the autopilot was, in earlier times, a self-contained system, in today’s modern cockpits the autopilot is a sub-system that interpolates and executes commands generated by the FMS automatically, or by the pilot manually. In everyday airline use, a flight plan is loaded into an FMS via either keystrokes on an alphanumeric pad, or via disc. This flight plan, pre-approved by, and filed with, the FAA will contain course, altitude and speed data that the aircraft will maintain at all points of its flight. The format of the flight plan can be thought of as “point in space” data. In other words, the pilot flies the aircraft off of a runway and initially aims at a point in space that is a certain distance from, and at a certain altitude above the end of the runway he departed from. Upon reaching that point in space, which in most cases is an “intersection,” a point at which two major aircraft routes known as “airways” meet, the FMS will execute a turn, a climb, or combination of the two to the next point in space, and so on as the flight plan progresses. Autopilots, once a system into and of themselves in airline aircraft, have evolved as well. Originally designed and built in large numbers during World War II, the autopilot has come a long was since the first commercially available unit, the Sperry H-2, a comparatively crude pneumatic mechanical and vacuum tube device that would hold a course and keep the wings level, more or less. These days, a digital autopilot, in conjunction with systems that control the throttles, can effectively fly the aircraft from point to point with little or no input (beyond systems monitoring) from the crew. Because all the components of controlling the aircraft communicate with each other digitally through a central unit, the FMS, activating such a “safe return” system would be a matter of uploading commands to the FMS to fly the aircraft to the nearest airport. Controlling the aircraft’s speed, altitude and course, the FMS would guide it back to land. Sources:
|
|
'HORRIFIC' IMAGE STILL HAUNTS SURRY WOMAN DISASTER VIEWED FROM ARLINGTON Daily Press; Newport News Abstract: Her brother, [Keith Wheelhouse], of Virginia Beach, spotted the planes first. The second plane looked similar to a C- 130 transport plane, he said. He believes it flew directly above the American Airlines jet, as if to prevent two planes from appearing on radar while at the same time guiding the jet toward the Pentagon. Wheelhouse's account of a second plane is unlike everything else that has been reported about the attack. Some initial reports on television said a second airliner might be headed for the Pentagon, but authorities later dismissed that. A Norfolk-based FBI agent interviewed Wheelhouse Wednesday evening. A possible explanation for the second plane could be a plane landing at nearby Ronald Reagan National Airport. The Pentagon is between the cemetery and the airport. But Wheelhouse insists he was not confused by other air traffic. HAMPTON ROADS WOMAN SAYS SHE, TOO, SAW PLANE FOLLOWING JET THAT HIT PENTAGON Daily Press; Newport News
Abstract: Kelly Knowles, a First Colonial High School alumnus who now lives in an apartment a few miles from the Pentagon, said some sort of plane followed the doomed American Airlines jet toward the Pentagon, then veered away after the explosion. At the same time, [Keith Wheelhouse] and his sister, Pam Young, who lives in Surry, were preparing to leave a funeral at Arlington National Cemetery, which is less than a mile from the Pentagon, when they watched the jet approach and slam into the Pentagon. Both of them, as well as at least one other person at the funeral, insist that there was another plane flying near the hijacked jet. Over a month later Pentagon officials finally decide to deliver a convenient story that the mystery plane WAS in fact a c-130 that flew out of Andrews Air force base and just happened to see flight 77 on its way to destruction. It followed the plane on a request from air traffic control. If this is true, surely you'd think that a fighter from the same base could have intercepted the plane instead of having to ask a c-130 that just happened to be in the area to have a look? All of this certainly adds a lot of fuel to the popular theories that the planes were being flown by remote control, especially now we have evidence to suggest that an unknown plane or flying object has been sighted at the WTC, flight 93 and now at the Pentagon. WTC object caught on camera as plane hits: Here are some links dealing with the remote control theory: whatreallyhappened.com/enemy.html "Home Run" - Electronically Hijacking the World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Copyright Joe Vialls, October 2001 In the mid-seventies America faced a new and escalating crisis, with US commercial jets being hijacked for geopolitical purposes. Determined to gain the upper hand in this new form of aerial warfare, two American multinationals collaborated with the Defense Advanced Projects Agency (DARPA) on a project designed to facilitate the remote recovery of hijacked American aircraft. Brilliant both in concept and operation, "Home Run" [not its real code name] allowed specialist ground controllers to listen in to cockpit conversations on the target aircraft, then take absolute control of its computerized flight control system by remote means. From that point onwards, regardless of the wishes of the hijackers or flight deck crew, the hijacked aircraft could be recovered and landed automatically at an airport of choice, with no more difficulty than flying a radio-controlled model plane. The engineers had no idea that almost thirty years after its initial design, Home Run's top secret computer codes would be broken, and the system used to facilitate direct ground control of the four aircraft used in the high-profile attacks on New York and Washington on 11th September 2001. Before moving on to the New York and Washington attacks, we first need to look at the ways in which an aircraft is normally controlled by its pilot, because without this basic knowledge, Home Run would make no sense. In order to control an aircraft in three-dimensional space, the pilot uses the control yoke (joystick) in front of him, rudder pedals under his feet, and a bank of engine throttles located at his side. Without engine thrust the aircraft would not fly at all, so the throttles are largely self explanatory: For more speed or altitude increase throttle, for less speed or altitude decrease throttle. In order to raise or lower the nose of the aircraft, the pilot pulls or pushes on the control yoke, which in turn raises or lowers the elevators on the horizontal tailplane. To bank the aircraft left or right, the pilot moves the control yoke to the left or right, which in turn operates the ailerons on the outer wings. Lastly, to turn left or right at low speed or "balance" turns at high speed, the pilot presses the left or right rudder pedals as required, which in turn move the rudder on the vertical stabilizer. Back in the early days of flight, the control yoke and rudder pedals were connected to the various flight control surfaces by thin cables, meaning the pilot had direct physical control over every movement the aircraft made. This was no great problem for an average man flying a small biplane, but as aircraft grew ever bigger, heavier and faster over the years, the loadings on the control yoke and rudder pedals became huge, certainly well beyond the ability of a single pilot to handle unaided. By the late fifties we were well into the age of hydraulics, where just like the power steering on your automobile, hydraulic rams were placed in line between the pilot's control cables and each individual control surface. Now when the pilot moved the control yoke, the cables activated sensors, which in turn activated one or more hydraulic rams, which in turn moved one or more control surfaces. For the first time since Bleriot and the Wright brothers, pilots were of necessity being steadily distanced from direct control of their own aircraft. When the multinationals and DARPA finally came on the scene in the mid-seventies, aircraft systems were even more advanced, with computers controlling onboard autopilots, which in turn were capable of controlling all of the onboard hydraulics. In combination these multiple different functions were now known as the "Flight Control System" or FCS, in turn integrated with sophisticated avionics capable of automatically landing the aircraft in zero visibility conditions. In summary, by the mid-seventies most of the large jets were capable of effectively navigating hundreds of miles and then making automatic landings at a selected airport in zero-zero fog conditions. All of this could be accomplished unaided, but in theory at least, still under the watchful eyes of the flight deck crews. In order to make Home Run truly effective, it had to be completely integrated with all onboard systems, and this could only be accomplished with a new aircraft design, several of which were on the drawing boards at that time. Under cover of extreme secrecy, the multinationals and DARPA went ahead on this basis and built "back doors" into the new computer designs. There were two very obvious hard requirements at this stage, the first a primary control channel for use in taking over the flight control system and flying the aircraft back to an airfield of choice, and secondly a covert audio channel for monitoring flight deck conversations. Once the primary channel was activated, all aircraft functions came under direct ground control, permanently removing the hijackers and pilots from the control loop. Remember here, this was not a system designed to "undermine" the authority of the flight crews, but was put in place as a "doomsday" device in the event the hijackers started to shoot passengers or crew members, possibly including the pilots. Using the perfectly reasonable assumption that hijackers only carry a limited number of bullets, and many aircraft nowadays carry in excess of 300 passengers, Home Run could be used to fly all of the survivors to a friendly airport for a safe auto landing. So the system started out in life for the very best of reasons, but finally fell prey to security leaks, and eventually to compromised computer codes. In light of recent high-profile CIA and FBI spying trials, these leaks and compromised codes should come as no great surprise to anyone. Activating the primary Home Run channel proved to be easy. Most readers will have heard of a "transponder", prominent in most news reports immediately following the attacks on New York and Washington. Technically a transponder is a combined radio transmitter and receiver which operates automatically, in this case relaying data between the four aircraft and air traffic control on the ground. The signals sent provide a unique "identity" for each aircraft, essential in crowded airspace to avoid mid-air collisions, and equally essential for Home Run controllers trying to lock onto the correct aircraft. Once it has located the correct aircraft, Home Run "piggy backs" a data transmission onto the transponder channel and takes direct control from the ground. This explains why none of the aircraft sent a special "I have been hijacked" transponder code, despite multiple activation points on all four aircraft. Because the transponder frequency had already been piggy backed by Home Run, transmission of the special hijack code was rendered impossible. This was the first hard proof that the target aircraft had been hijacked electronically from the ground, rather than by [FBI-inspired] motley crews of Arabs toting penknives. The Home Run listening device on the flight deck utilizes the cockpit microphones that normally feed the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR), one of two black boxes armored to withstand heavy impact and thereby later give investigators significant clues to why the aircraft crashed. However, once hooked into Home Run, the CVRs are bypassed and voice transmissions are no longer recorded on the 30-minute endless loop recording tape. If Home Run is active for more than thirty minutes, there will therefore be no audible data on the Cockpit Voice Recorders. To date, crash investigators have recovered the CVRs from the Pentagon and Pittsburg aircraft, and publicly confirmed that both are completely blank. The only possible reason for this, is data capture by Home Run, providing the final hard proof that the attack aircraft were hijacked electronically from the ground, rather than by "Arab terrorists". Many readers might by now be indignant; convinced this is incorrect or misleading information because of "those telephone calls from the hijacked aircraft". Which telephone calls exactly? There are no records of any such calls, and the emotional claptrap the media fed you in the aftermath of the attack was in all cases third-person. We had the media's invisible "contact" at an airline who "said" a hostess called to report a hijacking, and we had a priest (?) who "said" he received a call from a man asking him in turn to call his wife and tell her he loved her. Presumably this man would have had his wife's name filed in his cellphone, and faced with imminent death would have called her direct. The FAA helped out by claiming that it had "overheard" a heated argument from a cockpit where the radio transmit switch had been left in the "on" position. When push came to shove, the FAA was forced to retract, and admit that the mythical argument was not on the tapes at all. Critically, the passenger manifests for all four aircraft serve as the final (independent) proof that no alleged hijackers or anyone of Arabic name boarded any of the four aircraft used in the attacks. As Laurence T. May points out: "On September 11, airline check-in counters were the only places in the United States that required travellers to present a photo ID in order to travel. A photo ID meant (and still means) a card issued by some branch of civil government. Years ago, the United States government took the first step toward a national ID card when it mandated the requirement that all passengers present a photo ID card before being allowed to get on a commercial airplane. "This means that the tightest security that the typical American ever confronts is airport security. This is the model for all other security systems governing the general public. Let's go through the check-in routine together. Pretend that it's September 11, and you are a check-in agent at either a United Airlines counter or an American Airlines counter. It is your job to ask the standard questions. "Did you pack your own luggage? Have you had it in your possession at all times?" Then you ask for a photo ID. The name on the ID must match the name on the ticket. The photo must match the person presenting the card." .. And, you guessed it, the name on the ID must match that on the passenger manifest held by the airline ground staff! It seems highly likely that these revealing passenger manifests will magically disappear when the American Government realizes the dangers of allowing the public access to such incriminating documents. For that reason I have listed the full manifests on a separate page. To visit that page and copy the lists, click here. Whether more information will be forthcoming about Home Run is unknown, but nowadays there are large numbers of people apart from the author privy to the basic data. As long ago as the early nineties, a major European flag carrier acquired the information and was seriously alarmed that one of its own aircraft might be "rescued" by the Americans without its authority. Accordingly, this flag carrier completely stripped the American flight control computers out of its entire fleet, and replaced them with a home grown version. These aircraft are now effectively impregnable to penetration by Home Run, but that is more than can be said for the American aircraft fleet. A casual count indicates that more than 600 aircraft in the USA and elsewhere are still vulnerable and could be used in further attacks at any time, which might help explain why America has been bombing the Afghans primarily with bags of wheat. For the first time in US history, American officials appear to be genuinely fearful of future reprisals, and justifiably so with 600 giant bombs parked on the wrong side of their missile defence shield. It is a "Catch 22" situation. In order to make all of the aircraft safe, the flight control systems would have to be stripped out and replaced, at a cost of billions of dollars the airlines cannot afford because they are going broke. Nor is there enough time. The most innovative anti-hijacking tool in the American arsenal, has now become the biggest known threat to American national security. For the purpose of public reassurance I would like to publish a complete list of aircraft which cannot be affected by Home Run, but I cannot do so for legal reasons. Any aircraft manufacturer not on the list might feel inclined to sue me for defamation and I can't afford that. However, there is nothing to stop me publishing my personal choice of aircraft for a flight from, say, Atlanta to Singapore via JFK, Frankfurt, and Kuala Lumpur. From Atlanta to JFK I would probably travel on a Boeing 737, and connect with a Boeing 777 for the onward flight to Frankfurt. At Frankfurt I would probably board an Airbus A340 for Kuala Lumpur, and finish the journey on a DC9 or a Fokker 100. Naturally I might be unlucky and pick an aircraft with an intoxicated pilot, or an unrelated mechanical problem, but apart from those minor risks I'd feel pretty safe. 15 October 2001 After this page had been hit on by more than 10,000 curious visitors, the current issue of "Business Week" (22Oct) decided to publish an unusual letter, suggesting that the events of the 11th of September would have ended rather differently if there was a capability for Ground Tower Control to "take over the controls of a hijacked plane" (issue still available at any US newsagent). Remember, the American Federal Government kept Reagan National airport in downtown Washington, DC shut, despite the fact that none of the "hijacked" planes came from there. However, if it were possible to "take over the controls" of a plane, then it would take less than a minute for planes close to DCA airport to be diverted to a target anywhere in the capital. There were just two aircraft types involved on the 11th of September. Eventually, after much reluctance, the government has now opened up Reagan National airport again, but ONLY for planes with less than 156 seats. Now what kind of planes previously operating happily out of Reagan National will this new "seating" restriction exclude? Hint: Among a few others, the Boeing 757 and 767. Cynics might be tempted to conclude that, as usual, "important" politicians and bureaucrats are being provided with discreet special protection from Home Run, while everyday Americans are left to take their chances as best they can, and run the continual risk of being shot down by one of their own F16 fighters. Ignorance may be bliss for some folk, but not for those who have studied this page and realized the implications. 18 October 2001 Suddenly, more than five weeks after the attack and for no apparent reason, the most powerful newspaper in the western world published a major article "reinforcing" the myth that physical hijackers were responsible for the attacks on 11 September. No hard facts of course, no corroboration at all, just the usual pathetic series of media "sources", all of them far too "secret" to reveal. Within hours of this newspaper going to press, television reporters across the entire western world repeated the fiction to their own viewing publics. From London in England to Sydney in Australia, everone woke to this new "proof" that Arabs were the real culprits. Never mind public safety, please believe what we, your trusted and experienced news peddlers, are telling you. To read the propaganda, click here. 19 October 2001 During the past few days I have received many emails asking for a written explanation of who was behind the attacks on 11 September, and why. As an investigator I can prove how the attack was carried out, but I cannot prove why or by whom. Of all the work I have seen on the Internet, the closest to the truth is probably this imspired report called "Orient Express" written by journalist Israel Shamir. To read "Orient Express", click here. 25 October 2001 Though I do not agree with the financial rationale where this report is concerned, the Colonel and his highly specialized group provide valuable additional insights into the impossibility of "hijackers" flying the attack aircraft on 11 September. To read "The Enemy is Inside The Gates", click here. 20 January 2002 Former German Minister Von Buelow Already Knew About Remote Control In his interview with the German daily "Tagesspiegel" on January 13th, former German Secretary of Defence Andreas Von Buelow made the following statement:- "There is also the theory of one British flight engineer: according to this, the steering of the planes was perhaps taken out of the pilots' hands, from outside. The Americans had developed a method in the 1970s, whereby they could rescue hijacked planes by intervening into the computer piloting [automatic pilot system]. This theory says, this technique was abused in this case..." Not quite so much a theory as might first appear. When I released the above report about "Home Run" remote control in October 2001, I mentioned that one European flag carrier was aware of the technology, though at that precise point in time I thought it prudent not to name the actual airline:- "As long ago as the early nineties, a major European flag carrier acquired the information and was seriously alarmed that one of its own aircraft might be "rescued" by the Americans without its authority. Accordingly, this flag carrier completely stripped the American flight control computers out of its entire fleet, and replaced them with a home grown version. These aircraft are now effectively impregnable to penetration by Home Run, but that is more than can be said for the American aircraft fleet..." The European flag carrier which completely stripped the American flight computers out of its aircraft was Lufthansa, the German national airline. Bearing in mind his former posts as Secretary of Defence and Minister of Science and Technology, Herr Von Buelow would have known all about this mammoth but secretive task. How very clever (and discreet) of Von Buelow to sort of "drop the information" into the middle of an interview about the 9/11 attacks! The main point of this report is to take you up for a flight in a high performance fighter jet, tasked with intercepting a "rogue" aircraft apparently off track and threatening a major city. We really need to do this now, because disinformation about the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center is rapidly spiraling out of control. Months ago rumors started circulating that the United States Air Force failed to intercept the doomed commercial airliners, which was largely correct information. Unfortunately, from there on it was all downhill and a pack of lies. The first Chinese whisper to echo around the Internet claimed that air force pilots had been ordered not to fly. There is not a scrap of evidence to corroborate this deliberate slur on members of the American military, all of whom are related to men, women, and children just like those who perished on September 11 in the World Trade Center and The Pentagon. Fighter pilots are warm-blooded human beings just like you, and they would have protected America if they could. For reasons you will shortly learn about first-hand, it proved an impossible task. Weeks later, the second Chinese whisper claimed that the entire USAF structure had been ordered to "stand down", deliberately inferring that the middle levels of the military command structure were involved in this spreading conspiracy. Once again not a scrap of evidence, but who cares about that? For those wishing to turn the American public against its own military defense forces, trivia such as evidence and the truth have no meaning. The third and most recent Chinese whisper, is a claim by Carol Valentine that rather than being hijacked by the civilian DARPA controlled "Home Run", the attack aircraft were actually remotely controlled from NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command) on the direct orders of USAF General Richard B. Myers. According to Ms Valentine, General Myers ordered his subordinates to track and locate four suitable American airliners full of American passengers, and they allegedly complied. Next, General Myer's subordinates apparently incriminated themselves still further by obeying his next unlawful command, to radio-lock onto the four aircraft and direct them to their respective targets. No weeping at NORAD in Cheyenne Mountain apparently, or concern that Mom or Grandma might be on one of the jets. Oh no, apparently Myer's robotic junior officers cheerfully jumped to it with a will, and sent hundreds of American passengers crashing into thousands more Americans on the ground in New York and Washington. Then for good measure, Myer's subordinates, by this time giggling insanely one presumes, grounded every serviceable combat jet in North America. Like heck they did… As with most outrageous flights of fancy, this one fails to explain how the entire USAF chain of command was corrupted, and Myer's outraged staff forced to remain silent in the face of massive American death and destruction. Proving a little knowledge can be a very dangerous thing, Ms Valentine trashes a claim by the Washington Post, which says that military jets were scrambled but could not get to the Washington area in time: "That's a dumb lie, even for the Washington Post. Andrews Air Force Base, home of Air Force One, is just 10 miles from Washington D.C. How long would it take for Andrews jets, capable of flying at 1,200 mph plus, to get over Washington D.C./Pentagon airspace?" Hmm. We will see exactly how long in just a minute. So strap on your "G" suit and don your flight coveralls, because we are about to get airborne on an air defense mission. Not in an American aircraft, because that would be distasteful in the wake of the September 11 attack. For our simulation today we will borrow a British Tornado interceptor, and try to defend London against a rogue airliner off-track from Manchester in northern England. The term "we" is not used in the Royal sense, but only to denote that the rear seat on this flight is reserved strictly for you. Just me and you in a fighter made for two. This is peacetime, when most home-based western combat aircraft normally carry only "drill" (dummy) missiles on their wing pylons, and have no live cannon shells in the ammo trays. Damn, we just bumped into our first irritating time delay! Though unarmed interceptors can quickly be used to check out the status of off-course aircraft like Payne Stewart's Lear Jet, they are effectively useless against hostile targets. We keep them unarmed for a very good reason. On a scale of one to ten, listing the types of accidents all air forces try to avoid, jettisoning live Sidewinder missiles down the chimney of City Hall probably rates as number one or two. Each western country keeps a handful of interceptors armed in case of a surprise attack, and bases them at the outer extremities of its national sovereign territory, from where the attack will come. Though the Official Secrets Act prohibits me from stating exactly how many armed aircraft are available in Britain or America in peacetime, rest assured the figure is exceedingly small. Any reasonable and intelligent person can deduce from this, that aircraft based close to major cities like London and Washington, DC, will not be armed at all in peacetime. Unfortunately, today the armed British Tornados are on patrol in the north and running low on fuel. Our own aircraft is not armed, so we will have to stand around twiddling our thumbs until sufficient missiles and cannon shells are taken out of the bomb dump on the far side of the airfield, then transported to the Tornado dispersal area. Why do we keep the bomb dump over there, so far away? Anyone who saw the recent bomb dump explosion in Nigeria that killed more than 1,000 people, will already know the answer. It is a very slow process. Only a madman races around the airfield perimeter track when towing a stack of live missiles with high-explosive warheads, and bins of high explosive cannon shells. Remember here also, that the ground crew first have to remove the dummy missiles from the Tornado before they can fit the live ones. Eventually our Tornado is armed, its safety breaks and systems fully tested. Already nearly an hour has elapsed this Tuesday morning but we can't rush off just yet, we have to check everything is safely on the mountings. Because we have no idea what magnitude the threat presents, we have festooned the Tornado with all of its optional extras. Hung under the belly are four Sky Flash radar guided air-to-air missiles, good for launching at 20 miles or more. On the wing pylons, four Sidewinder AIM-9L heat seeking air-to-air missiles which are good for launching at about 2 miles range, though not much further. Finally, in the belly of the beast, 180 rounds of high-explosive ammunition for the single Mauser BK 27-millimeter cannon. If all else fails, we will need to get close to the target to use the Mauser, ideally within 600 yards for a clean kill. At that range, two 10-round bursts of the nine ounce high-explosive shells should be enough to bring down anything with wings, leaving plenty of ammo for alternate targets. We check all missiles are tight on their mountings. As we climb into the Tornado cockpit, strap in and start the engines, we reflect quickly on the fate of KL 007, the Korean Boeing 747 shot down at night over Sakhalin Island in Russia, back in 1983. Those Russian interceptors were all armed to the teeth, right? Wrong! The three Mig-23 jets sent up to have a look were all carrying dummy missiles and had no cannon shells, meaning they were unable to fire tracer shells across the nose of the hulking black aircraft, the international night time aviation code for "follow me or else". On the ground far below, Major Gennady Osipovich sprinted for the armed duty interceptor, strapped in, and rapidly got airborne. His Sukhoi 15 climbed like a rocket, and after closing carefully onto his target by radar, Osipovich fired bursts of tracer in front of its black outline, which he could barely see because there was no moon. Then he received his orders from the ground, fell back behind the target and fired two Anab air-to-air missiles. The rest is history. But how strange to find out nearly twenty years later, that only one in four of the Russian interceptors was armed, despite being located right out there on the border, and next to one of the most sensitive military installations in the entire Soviet Union! There is a lesson here for those who wish to imply that USAF personnel at Andrews AFB, near Washington, were guilty of treason on September 11, 2001. "Tower, this is Tornado 012, request entry Runway 23" "Tornado 012 clear for entry and take off Runway 23. Wind 255 at 15 knots" "012" With throttles fully forward through the afterburner gates, the Tornado lights its tail and hurtles down the runway, pinning us back in our seats as nearly 40,000 pounds of jet thrust kick in. The runway markers turn into a blur and seconds later we are airborne, the wheels retracting into the undercarriage bays as we bank hard left and climb like a bullet, changing radio frequencies to Ground Control Interception (GCI) as we go. The brutal "G" force is trying to drain the blood from our heads to our toes, but our "G" suits squeeze gently around our legs and lower torso, enabling us to stay fully conscious and alert during the process. "Sandman, Sandman, this is Tornado 012 climbing through 30,000 on 095 magnetic" "Roger 012, good morning, we have you on radar. Turn right heading 198 and continue climb to 45,000. We have an unusual target for you today" "012, what do you mean by 'unusual' Sandman? over" "A civilian heavy has crashed into the City of London, and another one has gone off-course from Manchester. At present the second aircraft is on track for London, and we think it possible there is a plan to crash this aircraft into the House of Commons" "012, How do we know this, Sandman. Has this second aircraft called mayday, or squawked ident with his IFF transponder?" "Negative 012, we are operating on ground intelligence only. On approach to London I will put you in a holding pattern to conserve fuel, while the Ministry of Defence decides what to do with your target" "Identify target" "Tornado 012, your target is British Caledonian Flight 1503" "Sandman, have you gone nuts?" "Negative 012, remember who is the controller here. Maintain radio silence until I provide you with your next course to steer" "012" Despite the air conditioning we have both started sweating into our oxygen masks and flight coveralls. This is a complete nightmare. From the very beginning of flight training school, we have been told time and time again that civilian airliners are sacrosanct. Combat aircraft and civilian airliners do not mix. Not ever. Get too close to an invisible airway in the sky and it's an automatic Court of Inquiry. Fly so close to an airliner that the crew can read your ident numbers, and that means the end of your career. I repeat, time and time again, the end of your career. The same rules apply in all other western nations. Our breath rasps noisily through our oxygen masks as our brains try to come to grips with the magnitude of the situation. We are subsonic again now with our swing-wings fully forward, conserving fuel as we circle slowly and look down on Greater London far below. Apart from a single pall of black smoke rising up from the banking complex in the City, everything else looks so normal. Then mild paranoia slowly starts to take over. How can we be sure it is the real Sandman we have been talking to? Is this a cunning enemy plot to make us shoot down an airliner full of our own citizens? How can we verify these are correct orders? If only we had the American system where they carry cards with codes on them, which have to be matched from the ground before you can open fire. No, that's wrong, only the armed nuclear bombers carried those, and that was years ago. No matter what we think our brains are still numb. How could this happen, and why me, why me? "012, this is Sandman" "012" "Target is tracking in from the east, currently over Southend-on-Sea heading west at an altitude of 16,000 feet, and descending. Tell your rear to get a lock with his radar. This is not a drill, I repeat this is not a drill. Engage and destroy the target" "012 arming weapons" Home Run 2 - "Tornado 012, your Target is British Caledonian Flight 1503" Copyright Joe Vialls, February 2002
Reactions are automatic. Throttles through the gates, afterburners alight as the wings start swinging back to the supersonic position. Roll inverted and pull through, heading east to get behind the target. The Tornado slips through the sound barrier as a numbed finger reaches out and selects the first pair of Sidewinder heat seeking missiles on the weapons panel. The Sidewinders come alive and start their low murmuring in the headphones. Reassuring in a real life combat situation, but disconcerting now. A sickening swoop and then throttles back, air brakes out, wings fully forward to the
subsonic position. Speed matched with the airliner as we level out alongside. Passengers waving at
us idiotically from the windows. Throttles back through the gate and we accelerate diagonally
across its nose, waggling our wings, the international aviation daylight code for "follow me or else".
No response. So we buzz the giant airliner again, this time only just missing its nose. He must have
seen us, but still no response.
We fall back behind the target. At five miles range, the murmuring in the headphones is starting to get louder as the Sidewinders catch their first faint whiff of a hot target. We stalk the target, getting closer all the time, and the murmur in our headphones turns to a clamor. The Sidewinders have locked onto the target and want to be let off the leash. Safety off, gently touch the unsheathed trigger with a gloved hand. No, dammit, no! The target is less than two miles ahead, resplendent in its shiny white, blue and yellow colors. A giant lumbering beast of a plane incapable of taking evasive action, stuffed full of unsuspecting British citizens. While the Sidewinders continue to clamor in the background, a mixture of sorrow and pity takes over. Sorrow for the passengers and crew we have been instructed to kill without warning, and pity for ourselves at the prospect of spending the rest of our lives in prison for carrying out the order.
The thought process has only taken about two seconds, but it is enough to distract us from the target ahead. Now both aircraft are flying over the densely populated East End of London. Poorer people than in the West End to be sure, and perhaps not as important as the politicians in |
A
design team from Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and DARPA incorporated stealth
technology into the DarkStar, enabling it to fly reconnaissance missions
in highly defended areas. Carrying either a Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR)
or an Electro-Optical (EO) sensor, DarkStar would have flown at an altitude
over 45,000 feet at a speed greater than 250 knots (288 miles per hour).
Designed to operate within the current military force structure and with
the existing Command, Control, Communications, Computer, and Intelligence
(C4I) equipment, it would have operated at a range of 500 nautical miles
(575 miles) and have stayed on station more than eight hours. The Lockheed
Martin Skunk Works at Palmdale, California, built the fuselage of the
vehicle and integrated the EO sensor and other subsystems. Boeing built
the wings, provided the avionics, and integrated the SAR and vehicle management
system.
Designed
to be fully autonomous, the DarkStar could take off, fly to the target
area, operate its sensors, transmit its sensor imagery, return to base,
and land without human intervention. Using a direct Line of Sight (LOS)
data link, operators in the ground station could alter the flight path
and redirect the sensors in flight with computer inputs for 250 nautical
miles (288 miles). Beyond that range, they would have remained in contact
through satellite links. Therefore, Dark Star had the potential of operating
thousands of miles from the ground station.
