Untitled Document
Taking a Closer Look at the Stories Ignored by the Corporate Media
Donate | Fair Use Notice | Who We Are | Contact

NEWS
All News
9-11
Corporatism
Disaster in New Orleans
Economics
Environment
Globalization
Government / The Elite
Human Rights
International Affairs
Iraq War
London Bombing
Media
Police State / Military
Science / Health
Voting Integrity
War on Terrorism
Miscellaneous

COMMENTARY
All Commentaries
9-11
CIA
Corporatism
Economics
Government / The Elite
Imperialism
Iraq War
Media
Police State / Military
Science / Health
Voting Integrity
War on Terrorism

SEARCH/ARCHIVES
Advanced Search
View the Archives

E-mail this Link   Printer Friendly

9-11 -
-

Why NORAD Interceptors Couldn't Catch Those 911 Boeings

Posted in the database on Monday, May 15th, 2006 @ 19:02:56 MST (3350 views)
by Douglas Herman    Rense.com  

Untitled Document

One of the most sacred beliefs about the four jumbo jets hijacked on September 11th, 2001, was that terrified passengers tried to communicate with those safe on the earth. The recent movie, "Flight 93," elevates this belief to a sacrament.

In order to verify that cell phones would have functioned, a test would have had to be performed in 2001, from a Boeing 757-767, moving erratically through the sky, often at low elevation. To my recollection, none were ever performed by any researcher, and certainly no reporter in the mainstream media.

Because NORAD fighter pilots never VISUALLY verified what happened aboard those four Boeings on 9-11, we will never know what occurred in the most crucial part of the plane, the cockpit. Instead we have been given play-by-play cell phone accounts of what occurred. Some of the accounts remain perplexing to say the least.

NORAD: Malice Aforethought?

There are three reasons why NORAD fighters did not intercept and visually inspect any of the hijacked Boeings. Being confused and unable to locate the hijacked planes appears suspicious, to say the least. Because imagine what those NORAD pilots might have seen. (1) Arab hijackers-or pilots posing as Arabs. (2) Professional pilots frantically waving and holding signs indicating the plane was remote controlled. (3) No pilots at all.

How, you ask, could no pilots be at the controls? Recall the flight of Pro golfer Payne Stewart. The private jet flew, maintaining a steady airspeed and course---but everyone aboard was dead. What the NORAD interceptors saw was frosted windows and no sign of life.

Now ask yourself: With four slow-moving jets to choose from, why couldn't NORAD intercept and make visual contact with even ONE? Perhaps, if that visual inspection had occurred, the USAF pilot might have reported something highly suspicious. And I don't mean sullen suicide pilots who forgot to pack their Korans.

They might have witnessed no visible sign of life. Or they would have radioed that the pilots were gesturing to them, signaling the plane was somehow flying itself. Without the poignant cell phone conversations, the entire "terrorist hijacking" would have been as fictitious as a Harry Potter fantasy novel.

No hijackers, no war on terror. No war on terror, no billions for defense and security upgrades. No cell phone calls about Arab terrorists, no religious war to, ostensibly smash Islamic countries and steal their oil.

Now suppose those NORAD pilots had made visual contact and saw-gasp---professional pilots frantically trying to regain control of their Boeing aircraft. The fighter pilots might have relayed the ominous message: "Cockpit pilots signaling they have NO control. Pilots holding sign: cannot regain manual control of stick!"

Recall that not ONE Boeing pilot pressed a four digit signal indicating their planes were being hijacked. You would think at least one pilot would have gotten off a quick message.

Equally suspicious, NORAD fighter pilots were either rerouted AWAY from the Boeings, or commanded to fly at such slow speeds they could not intercept a commercial plane, even if given a week to do so. Why? Because fighter pilots could NOT be allowed to see into the cockpit.

Whatever was visible inside the four cockpits was too terrible to see. Not frantic fighting, but perhaps the opposite: an absence of any life.

Was NORAD a criminal conspirator on 9-11? Emphatically. Consider the long list of criminal derelictions that would convict them. These accusations are from 9-11 Research

Failures to scramble: NORAD, once notified of the off-course aircraft, failed to scramble jets from the nearest bases.

Failures to intercept: Once airborne, interceptors failed to reach their targets because they flew at small fractions of their top speeds.

Failures to redeploy: Fighters that were airborne and within interception range of the deviating aircraft were not redeployed to pursue them.

Indeed, once airborne, NORAD F-15s were flying slower than 450 MPH---slower than World War II fighter planes! The top speed of an F-15 in pursuit is 1875 MPH.

Perhaps the only NORAD interceptor to actually intercept an alleged hijacked airliner, occurred with Flight 93, over Shanksville, Pennsylvania. However, the US government denied the Boeing was shot down although evidence indicates otherwise.

NORAD: many unanswered questions remain about September 11th, 2001. As a former Air Force serviceman, I am ashamed and angered by the evident fraud and intentional failure that indicate---almost without a doubt---a military coup occured.

Footnote: One of the many incongruous scenes in the movie, United 93, occured when the terrorist pilot props a postcard of the Capitol Building on the steering yoke. As if one could just hijack a jumbo jet, head east to the ocean and fly around until seeing the dome.

Amateur historian and USAF veteran, Douglas Herman writes regularly for Rense and is the author of The Guns of Dallas. Read the reviews on Amazon.com



Go to Original Article >>>

The views expressed herein are the writers' own and do not necessarily reflect those of Looking Glass News. Click the disclaimer link below for more information.
Email: editor@lookingglassnews.org.

E-mail this Link   Printer Friendly




Untitled Document
Disclaimer
Donate | Fair Use Notice | Who We Are | Contact
Copyright 2005 Looking Glass News.