THE ENEMY IS INSIDE THE GATES....
"CIVILIAN AND MILITARY PILOTS
911 MUST HAVE BEEN PLANNED WITHIN THE US GOVERNMENT.

by Donn de Grand

A veteran of over 100 sorties over North Vietnam says: "Those birds (commercial airliners) either had a crack fighter pilot in the left seat, or they were being maneuvered by remote control."

by Donn de Grand Pré Oct. 23, 2001

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:

1) Alan Greenspan, Fed chairman, promising to flood the market with up to $200 billion in FRNs and to further lower interest rates, thus bringing about hyperinflation and dollar devaluation. Much of these multi billions in largesse will be dumped into the coffers of Wall Street, Defense, bankrupt airlines, insurance companies and into the willing arms of debt-ridden third-world countries in the form of debt repudiation (forgiveness). Call it bribery, in order to get these often reluctant nations to join our coalition of "freedom fighters" in "the war against terrorism".

2) Paul Wolfowitz, deputy Defense secretary, promised that the US will launch "sustained military strikes against those behind the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington". He said that the "military retaliation would continue until the roots of terrorism are destroyed."

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.

(Donn de Grand M, a retired Army colonel, is author of A Window on America, Confessions of an Arms Peddler and his latest, Barbarians Inside the Gates.)

Related Research Resources:

    

    




The Temple of Karnak



Related Articles:

ALICE IN WONDERLAND AND THE WTC DISASTER by David Icke

USA - U.S. Army's Undeclared War on Patriots Worldwide

Urban Warfare - Planned




Back to the Americas Menu
Back to News Archive Menu




Notice: TGS HiddenMysteries and/or the donor of this material may or may not agree with all the data or conclusions of this data. It is presented here 'as is' for your benefit and research. Material for these pages are sent from around the world. If by chance there is a copyrighted article posted which the author does not want read, email the webmaster and it will be removed. If proper credit for authorship is not noted please email the webmaster for corrections to be posted.


FAIR USE NOTICE. This site may at times contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

United States Code: Title 17, Section 107 http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/unframed/17/107.html Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include - (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.