There's an intro which might be a little superfluous, but it works its way into a pilot-to-pilot/atc conversation with Robin Hordon. Basically, if flight 11 and flight 175 were piloted by Atta and al-Shehhi, they would have been able to fly into their targets assisted by the onboard "Flight Director".

Mr. Hordon, feel free to comment.

I could not possibly say enough positive things about Aidan Monahan's work on the behalf of 9/11 Truth...its really as simple as that. I know alot from my piloting and air traffic controlling experiences but I have had difficulty transmitting this information to the public...even an aware public in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Aidan has done yeoman's work here...and it should be considered thoroughly. If you want a pretty good look at most of my positions, especially regarding the NORAD standown, feel free to visit a website my Candaian Truther friends have established. www.robinhordon.tk should do it...

Here is what I understand and some points that I suspect:

1. I have known for years that aircraft have been able to be FLOWN VERY ACCURATELY AND VERY PRECISELY by onboard electronic devices.

2. I was well aware of the B707 REMOTE CONTROLLED departure, flying, approaching and controlled crash to evaluate jellifying jet fuel to see if post crash fires might be better handled. This happened in the 1970s...if my memory serves me accurately...that's almost 40 years ago. Please reread what I just wrote...smaller targets were EASILY visible to NORAD [we used to call it ADC...Air Defense Command] in the same area in the 1970s!!!

3. I was part of the modernization of air traffic control computers and RDP Radar Data Processing in the early-mid 70s...and at another time, I will make you all understand how the 24 second delay in the feed of radar data to NEADS from NORAD radar sites was the mechanism by which NEADS radar techs were not able to "see" targets so readily visible to FAA air traffic controllers...its quited complicated.

Simply think "video games" when one uses one's control stick to locate a target and then when one pushes a "fire" button...it ELECTRONICALLY eliminates all traces of that ELECTRONIC or digital target.

4. I was an air traffic controller as the NAS [National Airspace System] began to loook into modernizing navigation systems which included RNAV [Area Navigation] and INS [Inertial Navigation systems] which are only some of the forebears to what Aidan is now explaining to you.

In each upgrade significant levels of accuracy and immediacy of navigational and altitude information was accomplished...and the fittest of these innovations have survived.

5. Additionally, as all of our personal electronic devices have radically improved and become more sophisticated, so have the navigational, guidance and flight management [read: autopilot] devices utiilized by airliners improved and become more sophisticated.

Consequently, its my current understanding that once at the end of a departure runway, the latest versions of flight managenemt systems can fly the aircraft from departure to landing without ANY manual pilot input of the flight control surfaces, throttles, spoilers or brakes.

6. Regarding the "remote controlling" of air vehicles in general...and these four airliners specifically...

DUHHHH...we have been remote controlling air vehicles for decades now...and they are now used in warfare...so this stuff has been in place for years...

Its my understanding that inorder for the AAL and UAL B757 and B767 aircraft to have been remotely controlled, there would have had to have been some HARDWIRING MODIFICATIOINS NEEDED at some point in the aircaft's maintenance histories. This may have happened...but it adds a very, very obvious and complicated set of actions to get this modification accomplished in each of these four specific aircraft.

At the moment I find this possibility unreasonable...but I am open because these thuigs are well funded and merciless KILLERS. I am hopeful, that Truthers will keep looking into this possibility...with the patience exhibited by Aidan.

7. With the NOTABLE EXCEPTION OF AA77 which I actually think may have been the "Operation Northwoods" airliner on 9/11/2001... I personally believe that there were cockpit intrusions in the other three airliners...and that suicide pilots performing acts for their god and country structures indeed DID change the routing and altitude "waypoints" in the flight management systems to fly the airliners into WTC1 and WTC2.

UA93 seems like the Red Herring to me...if not only because there was a Hollywood movie made out of all the disinfo...

8. I DO NOT yet conclude that it was Muslim terrorists...and in fact I wonder openly about who WAS in the cockpits since so many of the "alleged" hijackers were/are still alive.

I actually suspect that highly trained suicidal pilots who are NOT the Muslim aviation rookies as the "9/11 FABLE" now has it, may have been reprogramming the flight directors, navigational syetems, flight management systems...or all of these...in ways that put the coordinates of the sides of WTC1 and WTC2 into the navigation systems thus insuring contact with those EXACT COORDINATES...and within the tolerances shown possible by Aidan.

IMO...Tarpleys ONLY gift to the 9/11 Truth Movement was to make us understand the term "patsies"...and this entire "Muslim hijackers did it" stands upon the thinnest of thin ice. Anybody who has read any of my stuff will note that its my opinion that ZIONISM is 9/11 Truth's most significant obstacle to discovering the truths behind 9/11. We know that Mossad was involved BEFOREHAND in the "dancing Israelis" story...so...did iMossad's involvement end there? Most likely not...

Its well known that ALL intel agencies have double agents masquerading as "the opposition" in ways that are totally undetectable and usually untraceable. If reading my stiff before, you may also already know that the ONLY information that we have to build the "Muslim hijacker" case upon in real world evidence [not stuff planted at airports or the passports at the crash sites], is the radio transmissions that were allegedy "from" the airliners. There is absolutely NO WAY POSSIBLE to trace these calls to these specific airliners. Any aircraft airbourne within hundreds of miles of NYC could have made any of those transmissions...upon a planned timing que. Like from an airbourne command and control platform...[see Mark Gaffney's insightful work...]

9. All the War Games and the June 2001 change to FAA-MILITARY procedures were geared to get all the frontline action people to think HIJACK-HIJACK-HIJACK which had the effect of delaying reactions because the Pentagon and Rummie would have had to be in the loop of approvals to scramble.

10. But the truth is that ANY air traffic controller seeing what Zelewski saw on his radar scope as he watched AA11 go HAYWIRE would FIRST presume an IN FLIGHT EMERGENCY...and, being the FIRST RESPONDER in civil aviation...he would take steps directly to NEADS and get military assets airbourne to help him out.

This EXACT request was made by Colin Scoggins at ZBW [Boston ARTCC] some 24-25 minutes AFTER AA11 lost radio and transponder contact...and his demand was still IGNORED by NEADS.

Additionally, I have read emails from Scoggins that established the fact that Zelewski was so frustrated that he had to fiinally stand up and begin YELLING that he needed the help that had usually been avauilable at his fingertips for decades.

This behavior is so totally outside the normal reaction behaviors of air traffic controllers that I interpret it as an indicator that Zelewski was PISSED OFF that he had no appropriate help as ATCs had had for over 50 years before.

One only needs to look at the PROFESSIONALISM ON THE HUDSON to understand that the LGA departure controller had "matter of factly" first arranged a return to LGA for the USAir flight...then coordinated a possible landing at Teterborough...and then began coordinating rescue efforts on the water landing...all in about 90 seconds of time...and airliners were allowed to fly randomly all over the northeast for nearly two hours??? Puhhhlease...

To think that a team of ATCs would not react professionally, immediately, efficiently and within any and all...and even creating improvised...protocols...is absolutely UNACCEPTABLE TO ME.

And these guys replaced me as air traffic controllers and I'm telling you straight out...I have their backs!

WE/THEY just do not fail to react to in flight emegencies...its our GOD D____ED JOB!!!

Its the US Military that was hoodwinked to deliberately fail on 9/11...by its own decadent insiders. And when the air defense sytem surrounding WDC was actually STILL INTACT...Cheney had to step in and disable it personally.

Thank you Aidan!

Love, Peace and Progress...with:

PUBLICALLY FUNDED ELECTIONS using HAND COUNTED PAPER BALLOTS on a NEW PAID FEDERAL VOTING HOLIDAY...

...just for straters as we throw the bums out...

Robin Hordon

Robin, you can also scratch Flight 175 off the hijacked list. That aircraft is obviously a prototype KC-767. The digital analysis performed by the University School, Barcelona, Spain in 2003 confirms that. Note the area in relief at the bottom of the fuselage, just past the wings:

http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/

Here is a picture of the KC-767. Note the same area just past the wings and ending where the refueling boom is extending from:

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/kc767/kc7671.html

Of course, the digital analysis shows other anomalies on the aircraft (in relief), but the above mentioned anomaly is the one that most interests me.

When La Vanguardia (the newspaper that financed the digital analysis) asked Boeing's head office in Seattle about the strange forms seen in the photographs, the company spokesperson offered to cooperate fully in clarifying the matter. However, after studying them for several days, Boeing (whose engineers were taking part in the official investigation) declined to give an opinion citing reasons of national security.

Remember when Fox employee Mark Burnback called his employer just after Flight 175 crashed? Mark said the airplane had no windows, and the anchor said over the air that it sounded like Mark was describing a tanker!

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

At the moment my conclusion is that AA11, UA175 and UA93 all were the original aircraft that departed from their respective airports. The principal reason that I hold this view is that the FAA radar systems were able to display these three targets all the way to their crash sites [for the most part] and there seems there was no breakage in such coverage at locations where a airplane swap would have had to take place. [AA77 is an exception...see below]

Supporting my view is the fact that FAA ATCs had turned on their primary radar displays to help keep track of these airliners and thusly, would have seen both the aircraft swapped in and then the aircraft swapped out of the swapping process itself. There were many, many trained and expert eyes watching the skies in the area and ATCs would have seen the two targets merge and then separate.

Additionally, having worked at merging military aircraft for NORAD War Games reasons and airial refueling, I make this point abundently clear...its REALLY HARD TO DO...with the precision needed for such a swap or merger. For example, if a car ahead of you on the highway has a ten mile lead and is going 60mph...and you are trying to catch it with a car that goes 60mph [or just a little faster], it takes a long, long time to accomplish this. Now add open airspace, thousands of feet in altitude differences [four dimensions], the brevity of time and location to actually pull off the swap, and it really makes it all a very, very tricky manuever...and HIGHLY doubtful to have happened.

So, the KC767 [and in the case of AA77, the C32 Boeing's military version of the B757], each fly at basically the same speeds and its hard to catch up. Circular flight paths would again, have been very visible to FAA radar. This limitation is different than the speeds available from interceptor types that need to be refueled in the air...they can catch almost anything. In other words, one of the the reasons that airbourne tankers fly in precise racetrack holding patterns as they await to refuel aircraft such as B52s etc. is because the B52 types cannot catch up to the tankers very easily. Thus, the tankers have to stay in these holding patterns until the B52 arrives.

This was not the case for UA175 from what I can see...so far. No aircraft were in large holding patterns and the KC767 you claim hit WTC2 could not have caught up to UA175...and no additional uncontrolled aircraft flying at high speeds in the area were seen...and they definitely would have been seen...unless they had radar cloaking capabilities...something that Mark Gaffney's great book the 9/11 Mystery Plane takes a brief look at...so???

More on radar flight following on 9/11...

AA77 was totally lost to radar contact in eastern Ohio and nobody at any facility at any time in any location ever positively re-radar identified ANY airbourne vehicle as being AA77. There is enough radar data and controller testimony available that shows that there was at least eight minutes of total lack of radar targets, including any high speed primary radar blips, in the eastern Ohio region where AA77 was lost to positive radar contact. Now THIS is a window large enough for a swap in and out in that region...between the valleys of the Appalachians. Some radar data shows the possibility of a low altitude airvehicle being swapped IN over West Virginia. More at another time. John Farmer has some good data about this.

A few trouble spots for 9/11 Truthers looking at the Pentagon-FDR data...

The existing FDR for AA77 obtained via FOIA is a fabrication as AA77 was seen by the FAA radar systems and its ATCs begining a descent in its left turn just before it was lost to positive radar contact in eastern Ohio. The FDR does not show this descent and therefore, is a fake. All the radar data and ground track analysis accomplished around the Pentagon based upon the FDR and the "alleged" AA77 is completely unreliable. In my view, the FDR data has been made of whole cloth so as to tell a story that the HI PERPS want told...one that contradicts the south track and one that gets Truthers to battle each other.

When the unreliability of the FDR is commingled with Barabara Honegger's work about the first explosions at the Pentagon happening between 09:30-32 some 5-6 minutes before the "alleged" arrival time of the "alleged" AA77, the entire scenario at the Pentagon is even further muddled.

It seems to me that the eyewitnesses dug out by CIT showing a north track are far, far more telling and reliable than anything that the governement provides as information that Truthers have analyzed. The Pentagon stuff is sure all crazied up...and then there is Cheney-Minetta...

Back to UA175 being UA175...

My experiences in flying both as pilot and passenger over the years [I have 1600 hours of flight time] has shown me absolutely amazing visuals and MAJOR mis-perceptions due to reflections of sunlight, temperature inversions, cloud formations and the like.

As we know, 9/11 was a very clear day with almost unlimited visibility...and had an early morning sun angle. This is something that should not be overlooked and should be studied further. At the moment I am quite comfortable with the images refered to as being generated by expected shadows and sun bright spots reflecting off of the shiny painted and metal surfaces. Same with what I see as a flash of light at the edge of WTC2 as the nose approaches the aluminum siding.

I think that the eyewitness that you refer to was quite a few miles away and on the east side of the WTCs. UA175 was in a good sized left bank meaning that its left wing was quite a bit higher than the right wing thus blocking some windows...and its not hard to understand that from those combined angles and sun reflections, it may have looked like a windowless aircraft.

Again, hopefully Truthers will still look at this possibiliy, but for me and for now, I'm comfortable about AA11, UA175 and UA93 [which I feel was indeed shot down] being the same aircraft that departed from Boston and Newark respectively. I only ask that we do this as meticulously and professionally as Aidan has done his work. No need for knee jerk reactions about this stuff...just a continuous analysis by those interested in this line of inquiry.

Love, Peace and Progress with:

PUBLICALLY FUNDED ELECTIONS using HAND COUNTED PAPER BALLOTS on a NEW PAID FEDERAL VOTING HOLIDAY...

...just for starters as we throw the crooks from both parties OUT of office!...

Robin Hordon

Robin, concerning Flight 93, I have a source on that that affirms that Flight 93 landed at Cleveland, but wasn't designated Flight 93 (so the passengers on the flight at the time didn't know that they were on Flight 93). Remember the AP dispatch that had the Mayor of Cleveland saying that Flight 93 had landed and had been evacuated? Well, many say he was talking about Delta 1989. Delta 1989 wasn't evacuated until 12:30 pm, and the AP dispatch was posted at WCPO at 11:03 am!

As for Flight 175, I have to go with the evidence (9/11 Truth is all about the evidence). The digital analysis confirms a KC-767, not shadows or sun bright spots. The object in relief I pointed to in my last comment is clearly not a shadow or a sun spot. The object is obviously in relief and matches perfectly the design of early KC-767 prototype/picture (did you look at the anomaly I was referring to in the digital analysis and then compare it to the picture of the KC-767? The anomaly I'm talking about isn't the so-called pod others have been debating about since September 12, 2001.).

As for relying on FAA radar, don't hold your breath. If they can insert false radar contacts on NORAD radar, then they can program FAA radar computers to not pick up real contacts. That is one way aircraft could be switched in mid air. No need to catch up, simply rendezvous with each other.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Dean, I agree that we must follow the evidence no matter where it leads...and these killer thugs have the finances, the skill sets and the REASON to pull this entire event off...and in many ways that we have perhaps not even thought of or discovered as of yet.

I think that it is entirely possible that UA93 landed in Cleveland...but I don't hold that view at this time. I might note that AA77 was a B757 also...and when added to the "land them all anywhere" chaos that began to unfold around the time of the UA93 crash-shoot down-diversion, it could have been AA77 that landed at CLE.

A Truther named Woodybox has some very interesting stuff about an airliner crash at Camp David [as well as some other stuff]...and I have third hand info that supports this view...[two eyewitness working in the area on 9/11 saw this...but who knows?]. Camp david sits at the northeast end of the valley in which there were no high speed radar targets...and then there WAS a high speed radar target...ie: the swap zone. And the fact that the Military uses B757s and B767s as their support aircraft means that if AA77 was flown to a "safe" military facility...[in the midst of this ATC-aviation chaos], the aircraft could have been easily converted for military use AFTER its occupants had donated their DNA...involuntarily if you know what I mean.

So, there are thousands of avenues of investigation that can be researched and developed. For now I'm going with what I feel that I know and what makes sense to me regarding my life's experiences in aviation.

I feel that the first reports that are/were obtained on such events are usually the most accurate and this is why I feel a strongly about the "AA77-Operation Northwoods" scenario. This is especially true since Burlingame was at the controls of AA77 upon departure from IAD. This is way, way too coincidental for me.

ALL MY DOTS line up for a possible aircraft swap regarding AA77. My "dots" also applies to the military and FAA personnel who made some statements about a "shoot down" BEFORE they could be shut up.

Barbara Honegger and I agree tha most likely it was a military airvehicle that made its way to the Pentagon and that it had an IFF transponder which would automatically disarm the WDC defense systems. Cheney may have been "taking one for" or "covering up for" the military because IF he did not state what he did to Mineta, [and that the story didn't EASILY make its way out from the PEOC?], then any observer would have to conclude that it was a military airvehicle that made its way throught the NORAD-Secret Service defensive shields protecting WDC and was NOT a civilian airliner. Things are not always as they appear.

Yet the existing primary Mineta-Cheney story or "stand down" option is also a strong case for that to have happened. In my view, when Cheney speaks, its all controlled and deliberate.

When Richard Cheney opens his mouth, psy-ops comes out. He is the most evil character of my lifetime and is capable of anything.

Cheney chose himself for Bush's VP...translation...the power elite wanted Cheney in the WH...and being VP was the only way that could happen because he is so miserable and unlikeable. So, they adorned the presidency with another Ivy League chump-chimp with a stolen election...and then had him follow Cheney's leadership. This is still going on as I write...and IMO anything opposite this view is historical revisionism being ramped up by the stenograper like corporate, and thusly, revisionist self-serving media.

Cheney and Rummie were put in place by the small ruling class elite to pull this all off.

There is little doubt that FAA radar data released may have been scrubbed and hacked [I think so]...and its the good old FBI that is the common denominator and obfuscater here...again-still. But, I have ferreted out some interesting information regarding radar data that will ask some great questions should any re-investigation get that far...or should we get the Controlled Demolitions established and then begin to look more deeply at other aspects of 9/11. This is why Aidan's work, along with your work regarding NORAD, are so essential. Its all great foundational elements.

Although Christopher Bollyn has been discredited as being an anti-semite by the Zionists protecting Israel's involvement in the 9/11 attacks, [which of course most likely means that Bollyn is headed in the exact right direction], he has established a routing by which Israel-AIPAC-Mossad may have had backdoor access to FAA radar computers and radar displays on 9/11. So, anything is possible and I remain remarkabkly open about many, many things.

So, keep up the good work...

Love, Peace and Progress...

Robin Hordon

WCPO posted the AP dispatch at 11:43 am, not 11:03 am:

http://web.archive.org/web/20021109040132/http://wcpo.com/specials/2001/...

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC