By Nick Kollerstrom, PhDThe Four allegedly-hijacked plane flights were:* American Airlines flight 11 left Boston 7.59 am for Los Angeles, deviated from its scheduled path at8.13 am, then at 8.46 am hit the World Trade Centre.* United Airline flight 175 departed from Logan airport at Boston 8.14 am for Los Angeles and hit theSouth Tower of the WTC at 9.03 am.* A.A. flight 77 left Washington 8.20 am for LA, and hit the Pentagon at 9.43 am.* U.A. flight 93 left New York Newark airport at New Jersey at 8.01am for San Francisco, and ataround 10 am was terminated.The UK’s Stop the War Coalition was conceived on 14th September 2001, mere days after 9/11, andwas announced publicly a week later. I invite Stop the War Coalition members to examine this war-precipitating event.We here compare three views concerning the event. The first is ‘Bin Laden did it’ and the US was amere victim – the official story. This option seems unlikely from the general character of the USresponse. The second we may call the ‘sensible’ conspiracy theory, as expounded by NafeezAhmed in The War on Freedom, How and Why America was Attacked on September 11, 2001, andmore recently by Michael Chossudovsky, in War and Globalisation, the Truth Behind September 11.Gore Vidal in his Dreaming War- blood for Oil and the Cheney-bush Junta endorsed the Ahmedbook, with its view that the US knew the attack was coming, and deliberately held down its normalresponses to allow it to happen. This is called ‘LIHOP,’ ‘Let it happen on purpose.’ Both these viewsgave the attack planned and engineered in Afghanistan. A key statement of this second viewappeared in The Guardian on the 2nd anniversary of 9/11, by the respected British MP MichaelMeacher www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/090803_meecher.html, concluding that the Iraqiand Afghani wars had been planned before 9/11.The third view is conspiracy-theory more based on robotics, whereby upper echelons in the USmilitary intelligence caused the event to happen: the New American Century needed an event of thiskind to enable its racist wars, by establishing the new Muslim ‘enemy’ of terrorism. This view iscalled ‘MIHOP,’ ‘make it happen on purpose’. On this view, the status of the multiple advancewarnings which the US received of the impending attack remains unclear. Classic works on thistheme are Mike Ruppert’s ‘Crossing the Rubicon’ and Webster Tarpley ‘9/11 Synthetic Terror.’ Thehuge majority of publications and speeches support the first and second views, the third beingmainly found in web-articles.
No Arabs on BoardThere remains virtually no evidence for the identities of the supposed 19 Muslim-Arab hijackers,beyond the word of the FBI. The event appears as a kind of phantom attack in that no-one claimedcredit for it. Merely hours after the conflagration, the world was shown an image of Muslims(Pakistani) dancing in the street supposedly rejoicing because of the event, then this film turned outto be spurious (its shadows were at the wrong angle for the time of day) and from a differentoccasion. Within 48 hours the FBI had produced its all-Muslim list of hijackers. There turned out tobe no airport pictures of these shadowy persons at Boston or New York where they supposedlyboarded, no corroboration from the lists of names given out by American and United Airlines, of persons who had been on board the four planes – in fact there were no Arab names given out aspassengers, and no telephone calls from any of the hijacked planes which mentioned that Middle-Eastern looking persons were on board, or were hijacking them. Then, a week after the event,Arabic newspapers pointed out that seven of the FBI’s list of nineteen were still alive. For the ‘fuzzyidentities’ of the alleged hijackers, see Ian Henshall’s second book, 9.11 The New Evidence.Lists of persons who were on the four planes (www.geocities.com/mknemesis/passengers.htmlor,www.911dossier.co.uk,3:1 - 3:4) show no names of Arabs or suspected terrorists as havingboarded that morning amongst the 45 passengers on flight 93 (Newark NJ to San Francisco), the 56pilots on flight 175 (Boston to LA), the 56 (or 59) passengers on flight 77 (Washington to LA) or the86 passengers on flight 11 (Boston to LA). To board the planes, passengers had to show IDcontaining their picture and name, corresponding to the passenger name on their ticket and as heldby the aviation ground staff. Giving out these names to grieving relatives is a serious business.When I mention the above fact to people, they surmise that fake I.D.s would have been used. OnSeptember 27th the FBI named and published pictures of the five ‘terrorists’ on board AmericanAirlines plane 77 as Khalid Alimhdar, Majed Moqed, Nawaf Alhazmi, Salem Alhazmi and HaniHanjour. For most of the given list of passengers the address and other details are specified, ie theyhave an identity, but a few don’t, eg, one John Jenkins. What possible motive would these Arabshave for getting an alias such as, say, John Jenkins? Five Arabs attempting to board having English-sounding names would be a sure way to arouse suspicion.For flight 77 which crashed into the Pentagon, forensic pathologists claimed that over the nextcouple of months they could identify all of the bodies, as well as those of the Pentagon workers,using latest DNA methods, etc, and announced they this on November 16th. The plane may havevaporised but bodies remained! After this great achievement, they were strangely reluctant todisclose the identities of the bodies they had found. Only 14 months later did a researcher succeedin obtaining this list, under the Freedom of Information Act: there were 59 bodies (three extra,named), but it was clear that no Arab bodies were present:www.sierratimes.com/03/07/02/article_tro.htmThe post-mortems were claimed to tie-up with thepublished air-flight list, suggesting that the FBI list of ‘terrorists’ was merely fictional.Remote-Control of Flights?On September 28th Bush stated that aviation might one day develop ‘new technology, probably inthe far future, allowing air traffic controllers to land distressed planes by remote control.’ All four planes had their ‘transponders’ cease function between 8.20 and 8.50 a.m. so that they ceasedbroadcasting their airline names, flight numbers and altitude, and became mere anonymous blipsupon the FAA radar screens. The transponder cannot be switched off, however it can bedisconnected. Pilots are not trained in how to do this - it forms no part of their training. A skilledaviation-engineer is required, using special tools to open the requisite flaps etc. and to know whichplug one would disconnect. The flight-instruction manuals the hijackers were said to have learntfrom, would in no way have mentioned this. Persons plotting this event from a cave in Afghanistanmight have difficulty in doing this.The first action of a pilot on apprehending a hijack is to put out a standard ‘I’ve been hijacked’ radio
message which is a four-digit code. Experts were baffled by the absence of any such response fromany of the four planes and surmised that remote-control of the planes may have been attempted, toaccount for these features (www.geocities.com/mknemesis/homerun.html), as well as the fact thattwo of the four planes had their cockpit voice recorders recovered (flights 77 and 93), and thesewere blank. These have a continuous loop that records the last thirty minutes of whatever happensin the cockpit. The question of whether remote control of passenger planes was feasible is a centralissue amongst the hijackologists of cyberspace who mull over 9/11 (www.public-action.com/911/robotplane.html) . One phone call from hijacked plane American Airline 77 had thepilot at the back of the plane asking passenger Barbara Olson to try and contact her husband,Bush’s solicitor-general Ted Olson, about what could be done – what, after all, do you do when your plane has started flying by itself?The plane that struck the Pentagon came in quite high, then did a breathtakingly skilled 360-degreeturn as it lowered itself then flew in more or less at street level – various experts evaluating this havedismissed the idea that hijackers with rudimentary training as this lot were supposed to have had,could have managed such a stunt (www.narconews.com/goff1.html. One is bound to add, that anyace suicide pilot flying into Washington, would find the White House a far more evident and easy-to-hit target than the Pentagon which is very low.A group of experienced aviation experts, both civilian and military, met and wrestled with this issuefor 72 hours, and their press report stated:“The so-called terrorist attack was in fact a superbly executed military operation against the UnitedStates, requiring the utmost professional military skill in command, communications and control. Itwas flawless in timing, in the choice of selected aircraft to be used as guided missiles, and in thecoordinated 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 weare at war, who is the enemy?“The group determined that the enemy is within the gates, that he has infiltrated into the highestpolicy-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 NationalGuard units.“One General officer remarked, "I seriously question whether these novices could have located atarget dead-on 200 miles removed from takeoff point... much less controlled the flight and masteredthe intricacies of 11FR (instrument flight rules) -- and all accomplished in 45 minutes." The extremelyskillful 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 theywere being manoeuvred by remote control.’"http://www.geocities.com/mknemesis/colonels.htmlSome details of who organised this group emerged a year later (Colonel Grand-Pré, in Portugal),and this report seems to be the nearest thing we are likely to have, to an expert judgement on thematter.NORAD, built under the Cheyenne mountains, keeps a lookout for planes or missiles invading USairspace, and any such invaders would lack a ‘transponder.’ Thus, switching off the planetransponders in this most high-security area of America would have tended to bring the hijackedplanes to the attention of NORAD. NORAD declared that they were informed of hijacks at 8.40 amby the FAA, and they at first wondered, was this ‘part of the exercise?’ – an attack-simulation gamewas being played out that day, to which we return. If the planes were remotely guided, then whoever did it would have had no view through the cockpit windows, but would have to use either the GlobalPositioning System, using the geostationary satellites, or a Global Hawk remote surveillance aircraft(The latter hovers at some 60,000 feet, invisible from the ground).