Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Group of pilots disputes question official version of 9/11
The Portugal News ^ | 8/3/02 | The Portugal News

Posted on 08/29/2002 1:41:13 PM PDT by DrLiberty

September 11 - US Government accused

A Portugal-based investigative journalist has presented THE NEWS with version of the September 11th attacks that has to date failed to attract the attention of the international press. The report, compiled by an independent inquiry into the September 11th, World Trade Centre attack, warns the American public that the government’s official version of events does not stand up to scrutiny.

A group of military and civilian US pilots, under the chairmanship of Colonel Donn de Grand, after deliberating non-stop for 72 hours, has concluded that the flight crews of the four passenger airliners, involved in the September 11th tragedy, had no control over their aircraft.

In a detailed press communiqué the inquiry stated: “The so-called terrorist attack was in fact a superbly executed military operation carried out against the USA, 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.”

The report seriously questions whether or not the suspect hijackers, supposedly trained on Cessna light aircraft, could have located a target dead-on 200 miles from take off point. It further throws into doubt their ability to master the intricacies of the instrument flight rules (IFR) in the 45 minutes from take off to the point of impact. Colonel de Grand said that it would be impossible for novices to have taken control of the four aircraft and orchestrated such a terrible act requiring military precision of the highest order.

A member of the inquiry team, a US Air Force officer who flew over 100 sorties during the Vietnam war, told the press conference: “Those birds (commercial airliners) either had a crack fighter pilot in the left seat, or they were being manoeuvred by remote control.”

In evidence given to the enquiry, Captain Kent Hill (retd.) of the US Air Force, and friend of Chic Burlingame, the pilot of the plane that crashed into the Pentagon, stated that the US had on several occasions flown an unmanned aircraft, similar in size to a Boeing 737, across the Pacific from Edwards Air Force base in California to South Australia. According to Hill it had flown on a pre programmed flight path under the control of a pilot in an outside station.

Hill also quoted Bob Ayling, former British Airways boss, in an interview given to the London Economist on September 20th, 2001. Ayling admitted that it was now possible to control an aircraft in flight from either the ground or in the air. This was confirmed by expert witnesses at the inquiry who testified that airliners could be controlled by electro-magnetic pulse or radio frequency instrumentation from command and control platforms based either in the air or at ground level.

All members of the inquiry team agreed that even if guns were held to their heads none of them would fly a plane into a building. Their reaction would be to ditch the plane into a river or a field, thereby safeguarding the lives of those on the ground.

A further question raised by the inquiry was why none of the pilots concerned had alerted ground control. It stated that all pilots are trained to punch a four-digit code into the flight control’s transponder to warn ground control crews of a hijacking - but this did not happen.

During the press conference Captain Hill maintained that the four airliners must have been choreographed by an Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS). This system can engage several aircraft simultaneously by knocking out their on-board flight controls. He said that all the evidence points to the fact that the pilots and their crews had not taken any evasive action to resist the supposed hijackers. They had not attempted any sudden changes in flight path or nose-dive procedures - which led him to believe that they had no control over their aircraft.

THE NEWS, in an attempt to further substantiate the potential veracity of these findings, spoke to an Algarve-based airline pilot, who has more than 20 years of experience in flying passenger planes, to seek his views. Captain Colin McHattie, currently flying with Cathay Pacific, agreed with the independent commission’s findings. However, he explained that while it is possible to fly a plane from the ground, the installation of the necessary equipment is a time-consuming process, and needs extensive planning. THE NEWS will publish a full interview with Captain McHattie in next week’s edition.

The FBI also came in for criticism for the various pieces of contradictory evidence it has published regarding the suspects. Questions are now being asked as to how incorrect information was given out regarding the ID cards of the suspects, and the seat numbers they supposedly occupied after boarding the flights.

None of the suspects named by the FBI appeared on any of the official passenger lists. A further point was how the FBI had managed to retrieve the passport of one of the suspects amid the molten and twisted remains of thousands of tons of steel and rubble brought about by the Twin Towers collapse.

Dr. Paul Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury, and presently Senior Research Fellow at Stamford University, has lent his support to the independent inquiry findings. He also claims that Osama Bin Laden was not responsible for September 11th. The doctor has challenged President Bush to make public the so-called “irrefutable evidence” incriminating Bin Laden.

Colonel Donn de Grand said that if President Bush is lying it would not be the first time that the American people had been mislead by its government. He cited the recently published official government archives describing President Roosevelt’s duplicity in deceiving Americans about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour, which triggered the US entry into WWll.

He also highlighted the role of the country’s government in misleading its citizens in respect of the Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba, and the events that brought about the Spanish American war in the late 19th, century. “Whilst considering who committed this act of war on September 11th,” he said, “albeit Russia, China, an Islamic country or NATO, we must also consider that the enemy may well be within the gates.

“Not for the first time the American public might be being mislead, by those with ulterior motives, into lending its support to a war, this time against Iraq, that has no bearing whatsoever on the interests of the people of the USA.”

So far the mainstream American news media has failed to publish or broadcast any details regarding the independent inquiry. Similarly, the White House, whilst having received a copy of the report, has remained silent on its findings.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cheese; moose; tinfoil; usedfood
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-171 next last
This conclusion has been seconded by a UK columnist for the UK Daily Mail, John Carlin.

http://the-news.net/cgi-bin/story.pl?title=UK%20press%20back%20THE%20NEWS%20on%20Sep%2011%20attack&edition=666

1 posted on 08/29/2002 1:41:13 PM PDT by DrLiberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DrLiberty
And the moon is made of cheese.
2 posted on 08/29/2002 1:44:53 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DrLiberty
bump
3 posted on 08/29/2002 1:45:03 PM PDT by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DrLiberty
Heeebully Beeebully! Ya'll got yerselves a reee-port.

This dopey article is wrong on so many issues I'm thinking that somebody remotely controlled the reporter's typewriter just to make him look like an idiot.

Do they have typewriters in Portugal?

4 posted on 08/29/2002 1:46:57 PM PDT by dead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DrLiberty
"after deliberating non-stop for 72 hours"

That was the clincher for me. Sheesh. This belongs over on the American hating DU webshiite....

5 posted on 08/29/2002 1:47:00 PM PDT by eureka!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DrLiberty
He said that all the evidence points to the fact that the pilots and their crews had not taken any evasive action to resist the supposed hijackers. They had not attempted any sudden changes in flight path or nose-dive procedures - which led him to believe that they had no control over their aircraft.

Perhaps the pilots were dead before it occurred to them that the planes were doomed and they should take those actions.

6 posted on 08/29/2002 1:48:30 PM PDT by syriacus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Republican Wildcat
And the moon is made of cheese.

Yes, and a 737 has nowhere near the range to get from Edwards (Los Angeles area) to South Australia....hell, even 747's have been known to have to come to ground for fuel before they even get as far as Sydney...and southern Oz is another hour beyond.

7 posted on 08/29/2002 1:49:46 PM PDT by ErnBatavia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dead
Care to list any of these many things that were wrong about the article or are you just going to be a nattering nabob?
8 posted on 08/29/2002 1:50:24 PM PDT by DrLiberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DrLiberty
During the press conference Captain Hill maintained that the four airliners must have been choreographed by an Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS).

Oh yeah, they had one of those.

Idiots.

9 posted on 08/29/2002 1:52:04 PM PDT by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Here's another version of that "remote control" B.S.
10 posted on 08/29/2002 1:52:23 PM PDT by dighton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
The report seriously questions whether or not the suspect hijackers, supposedly trained on Cessna light aircraft, could have located a target dead-on 200 miles from take off point.

GPS. Flight Management Systems. Simulators.

Actually, the two WTC hijackers nearly collided over the water while on the "final approach" to the Twin Towers. They weren't THAT good.

It further throws into doubt their ability to master the intricacies of the instrument flight rules (IFR) in the 45 minutes from take off to the point of impact.

They weren't "in the system," i.e., flying according to IFR. The day was VMC (visual meteorological conditions), or severe clear. Just because commercial airlines are required to fly under IFR doesn't mean that a hijacker of a commercial airline is gonna follow the rules! Sheesh.

A further question raised by the inquiry was why none of the pilots concerned had alerted ground control. It stated that all pilots are trained to punch a four-digit code into the flight control’s transponder to warn ground control crews of a hijacking - but this did not happen.

Because they were dead.

And for good measure, I'm sure the hijackers either popped the circuit breakers for the transponder or just turned it off.

11 posted on 08/29/2002 1:52:33 PM PDT by bootless
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DrLiberty
They didn't HAVE an AWACs. It is completely possible they took over the aircraft when they got to NYC.
12 posted on 08/29/2002 1:53:09 PM PDT by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DrLiberty
Roosevelt’s duplicity in deceiving Americans about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour, which triggered the US entry into WWll.

So..this writer thinks we should not have gone to war with Japan at the time we did? Does he think Roosevelt planned the attack on Pearl Harbor with the Japanese?

At any rate, if we delayed declaring war after Pearl Harbor, we might have lost the war with Japan.

13 posted on 08/29/2002 1:54:20 PM PDT by syriacus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ErnBatavia
Nevetheless, the test (using whatever aircraft) was done over the Pacific. That has been verified. And it is possible.
14 posted on 08/29/2002 1:54:39 PM PDT by DrLiberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DrLiberty
So it was a conspiracy of the military-industrial complex to justify a war with Iraq?
I threw one of my wife's friends out my house for spouting such anti-American, Leftist BS.
15 posted on 08/29/2002 1:57:45 PM PDT by Spruce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DrLiberty
The fact it is possible means nothing.
16 posted on 08/29/2002 1:58:07 PM PDT by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: DrLiberty
Oh it's possible - but I don't think with a 737.
17 posted on 08/29/2002 1:59:05 PM PDT by ErnBatavia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: dighton
A group of military and civilian US pilots, under the chairmanship of Colonel Donn de Grand, after deliberating non-stop for 72 hours, has concluded that the flight crews of the four passenger airliners, involved in the September 11th tragedy, had no control over their aircraft.

Yup. I always make my best and most informed judgements on three days' worth of sleep deficit.

18 posted on 08/29/2002 1:59:27 PM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DrLiberty
Ten bucks says this thread - much like the one about Dubya being the master of disguise - doesn't make it to 5:00 Central time either.
19 posted on 08/29/2002 1:59:38 PM PDT by Xenalyte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DrLiberty
Bunk!

1. There were calls from flight 93 describing the hijacking. Unless, of course, the military had some Arabs with knives as patsies to pretend to take over the plane.

2. Flight 77 (Pentagon) took a round-about course in the DC area. No reason to do that if it is controlled from the ground. The pilot was looking for a target, and I don't think that it was originally the Pentagon.

3. It isn't that difficult to fly a plane. Pilots earn the big bucks safely landing a plane in a driving rainstorm with a nasty cross wind. Flying on a perfectly clear day when you don't give a damn about flight lanes or clearing your flight into the 2nd and 3rd tallest buildings in the country with air traffic control isn't hard.

He said that all the evidence points to the fact that the pilots and their crews had not taken any evasive action to resist the supposed hijackers. They had not attempted any sudden changes in flight path or nose-dive procedures - which led him to believe that they had no control over their aircraft.

4. Before 9/11, the rule was "If a hijacker wants the plane, he gets the plane. No reason for people to die just to prevent him from going to Cuba." You just let the nice Arab man have the plane and let the authorities on the ground worry about getting the passengers and crew out safely. It wasn't until September 12 that the rule became "Anyone who tries to take the plane will die. If that means everyone else dies too, then so be it." (Except, of course, you can't arm the pilots. That would be dangerous for the passengers.)

Idiots!!

20 posted on 08/29/2002 2:00:08 PM PDT by KarlInOhio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DrLiberty
It's not worth the time to take this article apart brick by brick. Let's just hit the high spots.

The panel reached its conclusion after "deliberating for 72 straight hours." Any panel on anything that deliberated for 72 straight hours would agree to anything to get out of the room and get some sleep. -- that Bill Clinton is an honest man, that O.J. Simpson didn't do it, that Britanny Spears is a good actress, whatever.

Regarding the comment that the hijackers "could not have become familiar with IFR operations in 45 minutes," they didn't use the instruments. They flew down the coast by looking at the waterline. In New York, they found their targets by sight. In D.C. they missed their target (apparently the White House), because it is short and hidden by trees when seen from the air, and so diverted to the Pentagon.

Only two capacities were necessary to fly these planes: 1) turn the plane, and 2) use the throttle to slow down and drop to target altitude. All of the hundreds of other guages and controls on these planes were irrelevant to the hijackers.

Or, the short version of my comments on this article: God, I love the smell of tin foil in the morning.

Congressman Billybob

Click for latest column: "Memo to CBS about Bill Clinton."

Click for latest book: "to Restore Trust in America"

21 posted on 08/29/2002 2:00:47 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DrLiberty
Crackpots come in all colors, races and religions, with a few flat earthites thrown in.
22 posted on 08/29/2002 2:00:57 PM PDT by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DrLiberty
Yeah genius, here's one example. supposedly trained on Cessna light aircraft

Each team of hijackers included at least one man who had classroom training, individual computer based training, and training in a high fidelity flight simulator.

Any person who has received this level of simulator training could certainly fly a plane well enough to crash it into a large building.

Your buddy Colonel Donn de Grand apparently believes this less likely a scenario than his idea (based on NO evidence) that AWACs took over the planes (after the hijackers killed the pilots!) and flew them, on purpose, into these buildings.

It's apparently an NWO, Rothschild, Buildeburger conspiracy that you and your kind are spouting. Something about the Jews and global currency or something.

Twits all.

23 posted on 08/29/2002 2:02:22 PM PDT by dead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DrLiberty
I don't suppose hours of training in a simulator count, even if they only trained in "turns", not in landing? Nor is there any mention of possible training outside the U.S. How long did they have between the failed attempt in 1993 and 9/11/01?

As for resistence, how about flight 93. And what about the numerous cell phone conversations between passenges and relatives on the ground? They don't count?

24 posted on 08/29/2002 2:02:27 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Don't forget that the 72 hours was probably paid for with Arab money.
25 posted on 08/29/2002 2:02:34 PM PDT by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DrLiberty

And you win today's

Congratulations Doc!


26 posted on 08/29/2002 2:02:47 PM PDT by BullDog108
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DrLiberty
Those Boeing aircraft have mechanical flight controls.

Using electro magnetic interference (radio contols like some model airplanes) would be analagous to using your tv remote control to flush your toilet.

A conversion is possible (like using old jet fighters for target drones) but that would require lots and lots of money and lots and lots of time, and would be immediately obvious to the airline crews and the maintenance crews that prep'd 'em.
27 posted on 08/29/2002 2:03:58 PM PDT by AzJP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DrLiberty
I stopped reading after paragraph 4 and here's why:

after deliberating non-stop for 72 hours,

I've tested code written during a 48 hour code marathon, it was junk. The human mind doesn't hold up well to that kind of stuff. In most people hallucinations start at around 60 hours.

flight crews of the four passenger airliners, involved in the September 11th tragedy, had no control over their aircraft.

It took them 72 hours to figure out that the crews didn't fly the planes into buildings?! Briliant deduction.

to be used as guided missiles and in the coordinated delivery of those missiles to their pre-selected targets.

a farm field in Pennsylvania was their intended target struck with "military precision"?

supposedly trained on Cessna light aircraft,

My understanding was that they had been doing simulator work on multi-engine. Simulator work is step one to doing the real thing. And if you're not going to bother to take off and land, if you're not going to take control of the plane until AFTER somebody else has trimmed it, multi-engine vs single engine just ain't that tough.

It further throws into doubt their ability to master the intricacies of the instrument flight rules (IFR)

This has two major problems. #1 they weren't flying in IFR weather and therefore didn't need to know how to do it. #2 you can get instrument rated in small aircraft.

At this juncture it becomes clear that this report is totally bogus and should only be read as a work of fiction.

28 posted on 08/29/2002 2:06:00 PM PDT by discostu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
It's a shame you missed the earlier post, loaded as it was with "corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative."
29 posted on 08/29/2002 2:06:35 PM PDT by dighton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Spruce
Since when is it Anti-American to question our leaders? Especially when its possible that they themselves are Anti-American.

Remember, they all took an oath to defend the Constitution for ALL enemies foreign OR Domestic.

You and (our leaders who violate the Constitution more everyday) may not believe in that, but I do.

I also believe in the First Amendment and Congress's right to declare war, two other things you have a problem with, Mr. "Pro"-American
30 posted on 08/29/2002 2:07:26 PM PDT by DrLiberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: DrLiberty
What a bunch of malarky. You should have put a tin foil body suit on this article.

You could get ten different psychiatrists to believe someone is sane; you could also get ten psychiatrist to believe the same person is insane.

Sounds as if your experts are in one of those camps.

Ridiculous.

31 posted on 08/29/2002 2:07:41 PM PDT by Slip18
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DrLiberty
During the press conference Captain Hill maintained that the four airliners must have been choreographed by an Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS)

You can't just pick up an AWACS at your local Walmart. This report is clearly implying that the U.S. government, not terrorists, performed the attack. They will need much better evidence than that.

32 posted on 08/29/2002 2:08:26 PM PDT by alpowolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DrLiberty
A Portugal-based investigative journalist has presented THE NEWS with version of the September 11th attacks that has to date failed to attract the attention of the international press.

Uh, maybe because they're all full of used food?

Of course, they all ignored the GPS SYSTEMS THAT THEY HAD WITH THEM! And they went out of their way to learn to fly the damn plane!

And let's not forget that everyone figured that if the planes were hijacked, they'd be landed at an airport say en route to Cuba or somewhere! Certainly not embedded in buildings!!!

Just damn. And this moron says there is a Harvard prof who disbelieves it too? How about we run his sorry butt out of the country on a rail?

33 posted on 08/29/2002 2:09:41 PM PDT by mhking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Xenalyte
Ten bucks says this thread - much like the one about Dubya being the master of disguise - doesn't make it to 5:00 Central time either.

Let's hope not. Embarrassing.

34 posted on 08/29/2002 2:10:19 PM PDT by M. Thatcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: DrLiberty
Colonel Donn de Grand is a nutcase...from another article by him...

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 psychologi- cal 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.

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 sover- eignty 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.

More here

35 posted on 08/29/2002 2:10:28 PM PDT by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DrLiberty
Since when is it Anti-American to question our leaders?

It isn’t.

And it ain’t even “un-American” to make up facts, ignore real evidence and jump to insane conclusions based on faulty assumptions and tattered logic.

It’s just pointless and reflects an uncommon level of stupidity.

But, in this great land of opportunity, even the stupid can own a computer and spout off their illogical and comical idiocy to their heart’s desire.

God bless America!

36 posted on 08/29/2002 2:11:24 PM PDT by dead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: dead
I'm thinking that somebody remotely controlled the reporter's typewriter just to make him look like an idiot.

Yessiree, It's tham CIA mind control widgets. Thar making liberals everwhere act like idiots. It's that right wang conspurcy agan. Thar gonna tak' over the whole world, their gonna. Already got Texas. Darn.

[P.S: before getting flamed by good Southern ladies and gentlemen, you should know that I actually talk like that]

37 posted on 08/29/2002 2:16:10 PM PDT by dinasour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DrLiberty
This is irrational crap. There is no credible evidence here that requires the invention of a "remote control" theory for the control of these aircraft over that of hijackers taking control of the cockpit. In fact, there are ATC recordings of transmissions from at least one of the aircraft that are obviously not from the flight crew.

Bring yer aluminum foil deflector beanie for this article.
38 posted on 08/29/2002 2:17:23 PM PDT by spqrzilla9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Prodigal Son
You'll love this thread.
39 posted on 08/29/2002 2:18:19 PM PDT by DugwayDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DrLiberty
In evidence given to the enquiry, Captain Kent Hill (retd.) of the US Air Force,

No pilot retires from the USAF as a Capt (O-3) except for...uh... "medical reasons"...

40 posted on 08/29/2002 2:21:11 PM PDT by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DrLiberty
This guy has seen the move "Conspiracy Theory" with Mel Gibson way too many times.
41 posted on 08/29/2002 2:22:14 PM PDT by LaBradford22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Slip18
I've never heard of this Colonel De Grand before. How much are you willing to bet that his commission is from some militia?

As for Paul Roberts... I read his column regularly and I haven't seen him endorse anything like this (though he does compare the FBI to the Gestapo, confusing I think general incompetence with all too competent evil). As for Roberts' university, I'm pretty sure the big school in Palo Alto is NOT called "Stamford".

Just a sloppy article.
42 posted on 08/29/2002 2:22:28 PM PDT by Maximum Leader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: DrLiberty
This is very old tinfoil hat stuff. Do a search on google.com for "Donn de Grand" and you'll see the exact same story over and over again ("Enemy is Inside the Gates"). I guess the AWACS planes use their hallucination rays to make Barbara Olsen see hijackers take over and fly the planes.
43 posted on 08/29/2002 2:23:24 PM PDT by mikegi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
let's bump
44 posted on 08/29/2002 2:26:00 PM PDT by tracer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: BullDog108
The tinfoil hats in Signs are pretty good...
45 posted on 08/29/2002 2:26:34 PM PDT by PJeffQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: DrLiberty
What Is An AFDB?

An Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie (AFDB) is a type of headwear that can shield your brain from most electromagnetic psychotronic mind control carriers. AFDBs are inexpensive (even free if you don't mind scrounging for thrown-out aluminium foil) and can be constructed by anyone with at least the dexterity of a chimp (maybe bonobo). This cheap and unobtrusive form of mind control protection offers real security to the masses. Not only do they protect against incoming signals, but they also block most forms of brain scanning and mind reading, keeping the secrets in your head truly secret. AFDBs are safe and operate automatically. All you do is make it and wear it and you're good to go! Plus, AFDBs are stylish and comfortable.


46 posted on 08/29/2002 2:26:40 PM PDT by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
Quick Instructions For Building Your AFDB
47 posted on 08/29/2002 2:33:48 PM PDT by BullDog108
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: spqrzilla9
"This is irrational crap. "

Righto. It totally misses what happened on the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania. Let's roll doesn't sound like a remote.

48 posted on 08/29/2002 2:34:23 PM PDT by ex-snook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Maximum Leader
There are both Stanford and Stamford Universities.
49 posted on 08/29/2002 2:38:29 PM PDT by Krafty123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: DrLiberty
TIN FOIL ALERT!!!
50 posted on 08/29/2002 2:39:13 PM PDT by Pistolshot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-171 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson