Group of military and commercial pilots conclude 9/11 by remote control

[philb]

72 hour symposium of military and commercial pilots organized by Col. Donn de Grand-Pre unanimously conclude 9/11 by carried out by remote control technology

Colonel Donn de Grand Pre (ret), was the top US arms negotiator and dealer to the Middle East under the Ford and Carter administrations.
His book, concludes that the 911 terror attacks were done by government insiders and used remote control technology.

Col. Donn de Grand-Pre organized a symposium in Portugal for a 72-hour non-stop meeting of pilots to try to assess what happened on 9/11. the group of pilots 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. After deliberating non-stop for 72-hours the group has concluded that the flight crews of the four passenger airliners involved in the September 11th tragedy had no control over the aircraft. The planes were taken control of by remote control. And they get into how the military industrial complex clearly, that is elements of it, were in control of this . This is all explained in my books.

Book 2 is "The Viper's Venom," Book 3 which just came out is "The Rattler's Revenge

Portugal News Online- Portugal's National Weekend Newspaper in English 3-08-2002
(discussion of the symposium and of his books can be found on dozens of web sites)

[philb]

1. Some of symposium pilots statements- no hijackers flying the planes

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.


Kent Hill is a retired Air Force captain.
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.

[ladjf]

2. I've stated on this board many times that a review of the

actual video recordings made by ATC would clearly show the skills of who or whatever was controlling the planes. The data would include not only the flight path, but other crucial parameters such as altitude and speed. The combination of flight path, speed and altitude would give any expert analyst all that would be needed. Yet, if such tapes still exist, I've heard nothing about them. Certain precise maneuvers are simply not possible for the inexperienced pilot.

[spooked911]

4. I have to imagine they are keeping these things covered up for a reason

I mean, has any of the key air traffic controllers involved in 9/11 been allowed to talk freely to the media?

[ladjf]

5. And the taped interviews with the FAA controllers were destroyed.

[hack89]

8. Questions

Is he saying that they can take over any aiplane? Or just those with special flight control systems installed.

Is the AWACS EMP capability a beam type weapon? What kind of range? Does it have several beams?

[philb]

9. they said it could take over several at the same time - link

Note: the C 130-H known to be at Fl 77 & 93 sites
was also suggested to have this type of equipment.



the versatile Lockheed C-130 Hercules was originally designed as an assault transport but was adapted for a variety of missions, including: special operations (low-level and attack), close air support and air interdiction, mid-air space capsule recovery, search and rescue (SAR), aerial refueling of helicopters, weather mapping and reconnaissance, electronic surveillance, fire fighting, aerial spraying, Arctic/Antarctic ice resupply and natural disaster relief missions.

Currently, the Hercules primarily performs the intratheater portion of the tactical airlift mission. This medium-range aircraft is capable of operating from rough, dirt strips and is the prime transport for paratroop and equipment drops into hostile areas.

Two DC-130As (originally GC-130As) were built as drone launchers/directors, carrying up to four drones on underwing pylons.

http://www.theaviationzone.com/factsheets/c130.asp

[philb]

10. More info on roles and equipment of C-130

Roles and Variants

The C-130 Hercules is arguably the most versatile tactical transport aircraft ever built. Its uses appear almost limitless: airlift and airdrop, electronic surveillance, search and rescue, space-capsule recovery, helicopter refueling, landing (with skis) on snow and ice, and aerial attack. It has even landed and taken off from a carrier deck without benefit of arresting gear or catapults.

Primary Role Specialized Model/Variant
Tactical Airlift All models, including the new C-130J
Attack Gunship AC-130 (Spectre/Spooky II)
Drone Control DC-130
Combat Communications C-130B (Talking Bird)
Command and Control EC-130E (ABCCC / Commando Solo)
Electronic Warfare EC-130H (Compass Call)
Maritime Patrol HC-130H, EC-130V
Arctic/Antarctic Support LC-130 (formerly C-130D)
Special Operations MC-130E/H (Combat Talon), MC-130P (Combat Shadow)
Aerial Refueling HC-130N/P, MC-130E, MC-130P, KC-130
Search and Rescue HC-130N/P, HC-130H, EC-130V
Weather Reconnaissance WC-130

During Operation Desert Storm the C 130 Combat Talon I proved a very adaptable and capable air delivery platform, particularly when called on to deliver the largest conventional weapon in the US arsenal, the 15,000-lb BLU-82.

[hack89]

11. But does the target plane have to have special equipment on it?

A c-130 is just a cargo plane, it can't perform command and control functions.

You do realize, don't you, that this capability is completely unverifiable (combination EMP and remote control). I spent time on Google and found nothing. Why should I believe this source - do you have some insight as to whether he really know what he is talking about?

[philb]

12. de Grande is pilot and was the top weapons negotiator for Mideast

worked at Pentagon. Has a lot of connections.
His symposium group had military and commercial pilots.
I suspect they know something about this.
The study they did was sent to Pentagon officials and military officials and Administration officials. So it must be around somewhere.
There was apparently unanimous agreement among a group of experienced pilots that the official version of 9/11 could not have happened that way. And that remote control was the explanation most consistent with the evidence.

Of course remote control does not mean necessarily either AWACS or C130, though either of these could obviously have such equipment installed. The technology is commonly used and has been around for a long time.

There also is ground based technology that has been commonly used.
As described on some of the web sites.
And there are also web sites out there on operation homerun, which is known to be feasible.

and Buffet, who owns the company that makes such equipment, Predator,
apparently had planes shadowing some of the 9/11 flights.

[hack89]

13. But were these special planes?

or can the military take over any plane with no prior preperation of the target plane.

[philb]

14. I think it does. But I'm not certain.

[dbeach]

3. Col Donne de Grande

has been on many CT shows in past few yrs and I like his message.

He said last yr that a counter coup by real Patriots in the govt may arrest bush/cheney

Wish that would come true!

King George Bush the second = KGB II

[Dancing_Dave]

6. I like this one!

This evidence has been kicking around the internet and some alternative media for some time now...but's it's important that any newbies to the field of 9/11 research be aware of it, because it goes straight at one of the most crucial issues in determining what really happened on 9/11/2001.

Air traffic controllers were threatened to keep silent, but some independent investigators have been pressing anyway, to the point of bringing a 9/11 widow in to talk to at least one of them. Obviously, that would put significant emotional pressure on any decent air traffic controller to break the cover-up, and then any competent investigative journalist will promise to protect and keep confidential the identity of an air traffic controller (or any other inside source) who provides important information. So these kinds of things have been happening lately, and I think we will be hearing results from such investigations very soon. :think:

[philb]

7. Is the Symposium report available? If pilots convinced of remote control

piloting in all 9/11 planes and that the offical story version could not have happened, why was this not followed up on by Congress, the Media, and public?
Is the problem that credible evidence by credible sources isn't getting seen by the Media or Congress?
Is there evidence that many in Congress actually got a copy of the report as Col. de Grand-Pre said? or who were they distributed to?

Why hasn't the report been posted on a web site?

Is the Portugese newspaper story available anywhere on the web?

[philb]

15. FAA radar shows Fl 77 could not have hit Pentagon

Download and view the Flytecomm video from http://irvingshapiro.tripod.com/cgi-bin/Flight_93/crashother.avi. You will see that Flight 77 actually did reappear to the West. If this radar track (labelled by the FAA with the Flight 77 data block) is Flight 77, then it cannot have hit the Pentagon. The timeline simply does not allow it.
http://www.the-movement.com/Radar/flight_77.htm

Apparently the Pentagon was hit by a replacement remote controlled
plane of some sort

[Rob Conn]

16. This is where its at tonight!!!

Callin out the B.S. Shout it till they push you in the pool. "The official story is bogus!" Keep it up with this info and attitude. I suppose we are all compiling lists of our most significant facts, and this may be one of them. We need a top ten. I'll make a poll. - R.C.

[philb]

17. What became of the CNN story of no evidence plane crashed at Pentagon?

CNN reporter Jamie McIntyre says he inspected the Pentagon site and it is obvious no plane crashed there. JAMIE MCINTYRE: From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. VIDEO: CNN reported no plane hit Pentagon
http://www.fathers.ca/PDF%20files/27_1-mcintyre.swf
http://www.fathers.ca/sept__11th,_lies.htm

[philb]

18. Another pilot/aeronautical engineer reached similar conclusions

Nila Sagadevan has a degree in aeronautical engineering and has been a commercial airline pilot for 30 years. He believes beyond the shadow of a doubt that what we've been told is complete nonsense.

The Pentagon attack. Ground effect causes ballooning- plane is riding a cushion of air on which the plane rises suddenly and significantly.
At the speed this 757 was supposedly going (500mph 10 ft above the ground), there would be a sheet vortex or downwash which comes off the wings and would be equal to the weight of the entire plane. 100 tons of lift would have been generated. Everything on the freeway should have been flipped over by this force. It is impossible for a large commercial airliner to do what this plane supposedly did. Not even possible for a highly trained pilot to land the plane this way - it is simply aerodynamically impossible. It must have been a "very high speed, small, highly wing loaded plane". Something like a global hawk or a high speed fighter. It is impossible for a 757 to make such a small hole- it would have taken out the entire east wing of the building. The Pentagon is supposed to be the most highly defended space in the world. 8 cameras on each of the 5 faces of the building- and none worked on September 11.

The flight manifests have no Arab names on any of the four planes. The names MUST BE on the manifests if the people are on the planes. None of the supposed hijackers could solo an airplane. The commercial airliner cockpit is infinitely more complex than that of the small planes they were learning to fly. They would not have been able to do this. The problem is not hitting the target building, its finding the target.

Flights 11 and 175 each have a pod/flash- there is a pod on each plane. Footage came from "America Remembers" DVD. These buildings could not have been brought down by the impact of these airliners. These buildings were designed to withstand it. Aviation fuel burns at 1000C. There is no hydrocarbon on earth that can melt steel. The fuel exhausted itself quickly. Buckling collapse does not pulverize concrete. "Pancaking" would have taken much much longer. Kerosene could not melt a steel core and produce 5 weeks of 2000 degree fires.

Bush's own brother (Marvin Bush) was responsible for security in some of these buildings.

Crime scenes were meticulously destroyed. Footage of UBL was ready at news stations and his denial was never shown.

Remote control technology exists and was probably used on these planes.
Power Hour 2005-06-06_Dave_vonKleist_Interviews_Nila_Sagadevan.MP3

[Dirk39]

19. Why don't you give us a link...

Hello from Germany,
All I did find, googling this guy, was a bunch of Nazi-Sites, Anti-Semitism and Alex-Jones-Idiotism....

And even more nonsense about the "Sovietization" of America and the Jewish-Bolshevist World Conspiracy (If only it would exist, I would be a part of it!!! - if it should exist, please anybody: post me a link: I want to become a member!)

Dirk