It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Two Fmr US Senators File Statements With NY Court Connecting Saudi Arabia With 9/11 Attacks

page: 4
20
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by Cassius666
What position did those goverment officials hold ?


Senators. One from Kansas and one from Florida. Read the press release. Google their names.


I was talking about the part of the Saudi goverment involved in the 911 operation. Which position did the people within the Saudi Goverment hold, that alledgedly were involved in the attack?


I would imagine that this information is included within the court transcripts and/or deposition, but I haven't investigated this. To me it's just interesting that these two Senators actually went on record in such a specific manner. In my mind, if the Saudis were involved, then they were more than likely solely involved in providing money and the 15 flunkies for the official narrative connected to the plot. The personality profile of the attacks as a whole stinks way too badly of corporate culture to be the brainchild of Arab princes. This was a corporate hit, and even the branding of the thing (the date - 9/11) is enough to tip off anyone paying attention to the fact that it was white, western-culture men who put the whole scheme together.

Oh, and when you follow the money, the War on Terror trillions disappear down only a few rat holes and the House of Saud isn't one of those rat holes. They were involved, but they weren't the masterminds.




posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by Cassius666

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by Cassius666
What position did those goverment officials hold ?


Senators. One from Kansas and one from Florida. Read the press release. Google their names.


I was talking about the part of the Saudi goverment involved in the 911 operation. Which position did the people within the Saudi Goverment hold, that alledgedly were involved in the attack?



Oh, and when you follow the money, the War on Terror trillions disappear down only a few rat holes and the House of Saud isn't one of those rat holes. They were involved, but they weren't the masterminds.


I am aware of that, but knowing who they are (were) might link to the next guy, eventually all the way toooo



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666

Glad that after roughly 10 years of people pretending to be architects and structural engineers we can move on to more pressing topics.


Marshall contends that the hijacking of UA 93 did not go as planned. The timing of the highjackers storming the cockpit went beyond schedule, putting the plane too far distant, the hijackers were not trained to fly that long/far, and they had to abort, taking the passengers with them to death in the plane. Shanksville was the resting place for the one plane of the operation that couldn't pull it off.

I now am of the opinion that something else happened that day that was not part of the plan: the WTC towers collapsed. There was no need for them to be collapsed. Pre-collapse images were horrific enough.

The towers did not have to collapse to make Americans understand that we were "at war", the enemy singled out as Osama bin Laden. Pre-collapse images burning in the soul of America would still have been enough to launch two wars.

Without a distraction of explosives and structural engineering, would the debate have turned sooner to who "really" did 9/11? I doubt it, as once Osama and al-Qaeda were blamed, fruitless debate of other things would no doubt still happen.

This trial will return to a topic some of us discussed 10 years ago, Saudi involvement. However, I doubt the trial will delve deep enough to label 9/11 a Saudi covert op. That is where the discussion should now go, as Mr. Marshall, using his aviation knowledge and research, has presented what for me is a sound and tidy explanation.

One thing I do beg to differ with Mr. Marshall is his insistence that a trial of KSM would knock down the govts story of 9/11. I say this because anyone waterboarded as KSM was 183 times would emotionally and mentally probably be unfit to stand trial. And maybe that's the real reason for waterboarding, not to get info but to render persons unfit to be believed.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
.... it was white, western-culture men who put the whole scheme together.


That be Cheney and Bush, who loaned their power and influence to the scheme.
I wonder what psychopath got the idea first?




Originally posted by NorEaster
Oh, and when you follow the money, the War on Terror trillions disappear down only a few rat holes and the House of Saud isn't one of those rat holes. They were involved, but they weren't the masterminds.


The Saudi intelligence service loaned their manpower (agents, trainers and pilots). The specifics of the plan? I'm guessing The Cheney Group shadow govt intel probably put together targets and schedules?



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by desert

Originally posted by Cassius666

Glad that after roughly 10 years of people pretending to be architects and structural engineers we can move on to more pressing topics.


Marshall contends that the hijacking of UA 93 did not go as planned. The timing of the highjackers storming the cockpit went beyond schedule, putting the plane too far distant, the hijackers were not trained to fly that long/far, and they had to abort, taking the passengers with them to death in the plane. Shanksville was the resting place for the one plane of the operation that couldn't pull it off.



That doesn't make any sense to me. Is it seriously being suggested the hi-jackers couldn't fly another 15 or 20 mins to Washington because of lack of training ?!

Isn't the obvious reason that UA 93 went down when it did is because the passengers were doing their best to break into the cockpit as evidenced by the cockpit voice recorder and phone calls ?



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


For me, the sticky point of 9/11 was how DID the pilots fly the heavies? After following the dots on Saudi connection. Marshall now believes the pilots were trained with a tight timeline and specific relatively short checklist of things to do to get the "bomb" (plane) to the target. Once the hijacking began, there would only be a short under 10 minute flight to target. Going at the high speed they did, they could easily cover the distance to target in minutes.

This list included specific navigation input. UA 93 hj's went past the timeline window enough, so that the specific navigational input, for another area they had passed already, didn't work in the area they ended up then. Under this training scenario, the hj's were NOT trained to be able to reset any input. They were already having trouble with Plan A by the time the passengers stormed the cockpit, and when that happened, they resorted to Plan B, abort in death.

If the passengers had not stormed the cockpit, IMO the result would have been the same, just not at Shanksville, but probably not far off. This is not too denigrate the bravery of those passengers, but to give a more plausible scenario, and IMO show why the same thing didn't happen with the other planes' passengers, who not only didn't have time to react but were also on the timeline to death.

I just gave an overview, but Marshall references data, sources and experience in his book to back up his claims.



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by desert
 


I don't know who Marshall is but he doesn't seem to know much about the navigation involved. In the case of flight 93 the hi-jackers, presumably Jarrah the pilot, had dialled in the VOR (VHF Omni-directional Range Frequency for Reagan National Airport. This is very basic stuff and he obviously knew how to do that. Having done that all he had to do was follow the radio bearing and he would get to Washington.

There was absolutely no navigational reason to put the plane down and these were 4 men who, however misguided, had agreed to give their lives for this operation. So there was no question of crashing the plane before reaching the target unless they had no choice. Passengers about to broach cockpit for example.



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by desert
 


I don't know who "Marshall" is, but this:


Marshall contends that the hijacking of UA 93 did not go as planned. The timing of the highjackers storming the cockpit went beyond schedule, putting the plane too far distant....


....isn't quite right. What put United 93 "behind schedule" was the delay on the ground, prior to take-off. It (UAL 93) was no farther distant than the other three, at the time of the cockpit takeover.

Take a look at this PDF:

NTSB Recorded Radar Data Stud

Scroll down to Figure 1. You can see the four ground tracks. Washington Dulles Airport is slightly further West than Newark, so in comparison to UAL 93 and AAL 77, there was a few minutes' longer involved, after the actual take-off, before UAL 93 was taken over. But the geographical location West of Washington, D.C. is roughly the same.

It is obvious that the time from lift-off to cockpit intrusion was more brief on AAL 11 and UAL 175, based on the length of the ground tracks, before the course deviations occurred.

But, it is presumed that in all four cases the cockpit rush was a moment of opportunity situation -- the hijackers waited until a time when the Flight Attendants were serving the flight deck, prior to their beginning their normal in-flight passenger service....this is a matter of routine, on just about every airline flight.



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


reply to post by ProudBird
 


The source I'm using I already linked, but it fell on pg 3, so I will link it here again

The Big Bamboozle by Philip Marshall Info on Mr. Marshall is at this site

Here are Amazon.com reviews and a website I found that has a nice summary here

I think there is also a Facebook page.

Re UA 93, I cannot cut and paste, so I will type in a quote from my book

In reality, because the cockpit breach was delayed, by the time Jarrah dialed in the frequency for DCA, that frequency was out of range.

pg 118


The cockpit voice recorders picked up the final words. In Arabic: "Should we finish it?" The recorder also picked up the passengers slamming the beverage cart against the cockpit door as Jarrah disconnected the autopilot with chants of "God is great!" and rolled the 757 on its back.

pg 119

Thank you, ProudBird for your link. I will look into it.



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


I think it would be far more interesting to know who these people from Saudi Arabia were and to whom else they can be attatched to, as far as their role in the operation goes.



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by desert
 


Well, the sentence from Mr. Marshall's book is not as clear as it should be, which leads to misconceptions for the layperson:


In reality, because the cockpit breach was delayed, by the time Jarrah dialed in the frequency for DCA, that frequency was out of range.


The DCA VOR was tuned when they were too far yet to receive it....but, this showed that they anticipated using the VOR as a reference when they neared the D.C. area.

At normal cruise altitudes of 30,000 feet and above, the VHF range due to line-of-sight over the curvature of the Earth is about 200 nautical miles, nominally.

So, the DCA VOR would have been able to be received, or close to it, from that point over Eastern Pennsylvania --- if at cruise altitude. But of course, they had descended well before that point, by that time, to about 5,000 feet MSL. However, the VOR receiver is not the only way to navigate.....the airplane's FMC (Flight Management Computer) could easily have been used for that. This is the FMC interface ....the CDU (Control Display Unit), located on the forward aisle stand as part of the center pedestal, both sides (one for each pilot):



It is actually quite intuitive to use....a picture isn't as easy to grasp as actually using it for a few minutes, then it makes more sense. I'll see if there is a YouTube video by chance. Well, I hunted, but although there are a few videos geared to the home computer simulator hobbyist, none really are what I wanted.

So, here goes: I'll show you how easy it is. Looking at the keypad above, all you have to do is push the 'LEGS' button, to pull up the Legs Page.

(Not a photo like above, but this illustrates how the Legs Page appears when selected on the screen):



Then, with the alpha pad, type 'DCA'. It is shown at this point at the bottom of the screen, in the "scratch-pad"....then, pressing the top left button on the side (six on either side of the screen) brings the 'DCA' to the top of the Legs Page, making it the "Active Waypoint". Last step is to push the 'EXEC' button, which lights up at this point, indicating it wants you to take that action. Once done, the airplane EHSI (Electonic Horizontal Situation Indicator) will reflect the new course, direct to the point that you entered and executed...in this case, DCA VOR.

On the Legs Page the course to the fix is defined in magenta....and it is easy then to see what heading you need to fly to get there. Which is what they did....

(The course to that waypoint is also shown on the CDU screen....as in above, to waypoint "D329C", the direct course is 329°, and the distance also displayed: 3 NM).


Based on the Flight Data Recorder report from the NTSB, they used the HSI control panels to switch the EHSIs from the MAP mode to VOR mode...this allowed manually tuning to frequency 111.0, for the DCA VOR. They were using the Heading Select function of the AutoPilot at this time, on a heading of 120°.

>(Adding....for orientation, THIS links to a layout of the cockpit panels and general arrangement)<

This is the HSI control panel, located on the center pedestal (2 places, both sides, aft or "below" the CDUs):



The center knob changes the EHSI screen display.....they moved it from 'MAP' to either 'FULL' or 'EXP VOR'. Changing the EHSI screen from this:



...to this for 'FULL VOR':



...or, to 'EXP VOR' position (Expanded VOR):



(Just ignore the green splotches....that is the Weather Radar returns showing, in that example).

Either FULL or EXP VOR allows the VOR receiver to be tuned manually....back in the MAP or PLAN they are in auto-tune, for the Inertial Refernce System position updating. (That was in 2001....nowadays, nearly all operators have GPS updating as primary for the IRS).

So, there you go...Mr. Marshall's imprecise description better explained.

You may wish to see the NTSB reference, it's a PDF HERE.

Relevant snippet, pp 6 + 7 (edited for brevity, and characters running out):


As in Figure 3, the points during the flight at which the EFIS mode switched to MAP mode
and then to VOR mode are shown on the map in Figure 4 as yellow diamonds. The VOR stations tuned by the left and right VOR receivers are indicated by lines from the airplane flight path to the stations. The point on the flight path from which the lines originate are the points at which the station was first tuned. < *snip*> Again, this illustrates the method the system uses for obtaining VOR position fixes to update the INS.

Shortly after the EFIS was switched to VOR mode, the frequency of the left VOR receiver was set to 111.0 MHz, corresponding to the VOR station located at Washington Reagan National Airport (DCA). At the time the DCA frequency was selected, the station was too far away for its signals to be received by the receiver. The selection of the DCA VOR frequency in the airplane’s left VOR receiver suggests that the operators of the airplane had an interest in DCA, and may have wanted to use that VOR station to help navigate the airplane towards Washington.

The magnetic heading of 120 degrees selected in the autopilot MCP was the correct
heading for flying to Washington.....




edit on Wed 7 March 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


Wow, ProudBird, thanks for info and images! I could follow the lines in the figure in your prior contribution, but this time I will need some time to digest (it's more like a Thanksgiving dinner than a snack for me!)


Mr. Marshall contends that the highjacking was to have taken place north of DC not west, and the data input was for that area, not where the hjing occurred. He says that the hj's were not given the same level of training as a pilot who would check out on the aircraft, just enough info/practice to carry out the mission, turn a plane into a guided missile. For ex also, he says that some of the maneuvers the hj's did were not standard but could be accomplished with training from pilots who knew how to perform them with the specific aircraft.

He also mentions weather. That time of year would be considered perfect for being on time and clear enough to make visual contact with the targets even from a distance out.

The author had written another book, False Flag, Amazon review link, which I never read but was apparently written for those in the field of aviation (unlike myself!...please bear with me
)

I'm old enough to remember the events of the 1980-90s that are part of the Saudi-American Intelligence Shadow Govt thread that the author weaves in The Big Bamboozle. As I read I was astounded at the dots he connected. Any book that has Barry Seal and Porter Goss written about and shown together in a photograph is one I find highly interesting!

Again, thanks for your info. I'm not one who would ever take the controls of an aircraft...heck, I'ld no doubt crash those RC planes even...but I appreciate the field.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by desert
 



Mr. Marshall contends that the highjacking was to have taken place north of DC not west....


Don't know why he'd come up with that sort of claim.....the Dulles Airport is already well West of the D.C. metropolitan area.....it's about a 26-mile drive.

On departure, American 77 would be turned to the West just shortly after take-off. So Mr. Marshall seems to be having a problem, there.



He says that the hj's were not given the same level of training as a pilot who would check out on the aircraft, just enough info/practice to carry out the mission, turn a plane into a guided missile.


He's quite right about that part, though. They focused, in the case of "learning" the Boeing 757/767 cockpit and Flight Management controls, only the barest minimums.....such as inputting the navigation fixes, and how to use the AutoPilot. That is just a minor amount of "skill" to learn, compared to the full knowledge of a professional airline pilot.



For ex also, he says that some of the maneuvers the hj's did were not standard but could be accomplished with training from pilots who knew how to perform them with the specific aircraft.


Well, there really weren't any "maneuvers" at all.....just basic flying, nothing "fancy" in the least. On United 93, they did rock the wings rapidly, and push/pull he elevators to try to disorient the passengers in the cabin, who were attempting to break in to the cockpit....but, that's anything any student pilot could easily do, too.



He also mentions weather. That time of year would be considered perfect for being on time and clear enough to make visual contact with the targets even from a distance out.


Yes, this is fact.


You know, you'd be surprised .... you could actually fly an airliner, just the basics. Only takes a little coaching, and actually "doing" gives you the tactile feed-back, the hand-eye-body coordination that you can't get from reading about it, or even from a home computer simulator program.

I mean, if pop singer Ricky Martin can do it (with a little help)...heck, he even is coached through a landing!:





That's a real company in the UK. Airline Pilot for a Day

I suppose there are similar companies in other parts of the world.....if anyone ever cared to treat themselves to the adventure and experience. (Of course, as you see on the website.....it's rather expensive. SO, would be a luxury if you could afford it).

A 30-minute briefing, then one hour in the simulator?:


£550.00
plus £110.00 VAT
= £660.00


Yeah...'sticker shock', eh?



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   
The article mentions no names. Anybody has an idea where I can look up whom the senators finger in particular, such as info about the trial condluded in 2008?



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


There might be something here for info on the In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 litigation.. There is a PDF link on the website.

9/11 litigation seems to revolve around financing of the operation. And if I read it correctly, the defendants could not be prosecuted because of foreign govt immunity.

Well, if any new litigation can result in prosecution of Saudi involvement financially, that's some comfort to the victims. After reading The Big Bamboozle, however, I doubt investigation beyond financing will be done, as much as I want to be wrong.

I have a sick feeling Philip Marshall got it right. IMO the only way Americans will ever unburden themselves of the horrific scale of intelligence apparatus and the use of it by the likes of the Cheney Group shadow govt to do whatever they want and get away with it (as they have for 30 years) would be to understand the nature of 9/11 as a covert Saudi operation assisted by the Cheney Group.



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


What a nice gift the simulator training would make for someone!
Here's another outfit, in Southern Calif, that is popular. Air Comat USA

Well, desert knew 30+ years ago she could never land a plan, so she never learned to fly. No, I leave the flying to others. To tell you the truth, I haven't flown since 9/11. desert also wants a hassle free life, nothing to add to my usual hassles.

ProudBird, since I'm guessing that you are involved in commercial civilian aviation, I have a question. In decades before 9/11, after there were Cuban and international highjackings, why were cockpit doors not hardened as recommended? I had assumed they were, all the years I flew; that is why 9/11 surprised me.

Getting back to Saudi involvement, I wonder when an al-Qaeda plan to use cropdusters and small such aircraft morphed into the attack using large aircraft? When did Saudi intelligence intervene? The trial will bring out once again financial support, but will any of this lead to evidence of Saudi govt aviation and intelligence support?

...I guess the security state is still not bad enough for Americans.They didn't seem to pay attention and care when IranContra was known to run guns (and drugs) under Bush Sr. And why would they care about cargo planes loaded with crates in Pakistan (and elsewhere) that probably do the same thing? Nah, all that pales in comparison to the crap heard daily that passes for "news".
...we're mushrooms...



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by desert
 


About the cockpit doors....the historical modus operandi for hijackings prior to 9/11 were either politically motivated, or financially motivated (extortion). The presence of the passengers and crew were ready-made to be used as hostages, for leverage.

It was presumed in all cases that the hijacker(s) had no death wish.

There existed (in the U.S.) what was called the "Common Strategy". Rather than me going on and on (and revealing too much), I'll let the wording out in public from Wiki do it:


It taught crew members to comply with the hijackers' demands, get the plane to land safely and then let the security forces handle the situation. Crew members advised passengers to sit quietly in order to increase their chances of survival. They were also trained not to make any 'heroic' moves that could endanger themselves or other people. The FAA realized that the longer a hijacking persisted, the more likely it would end peacefully with the hijackers reaching their goal.


Full Wiki

(BTW....I smile every time I see "Wiki"...reminds me of Hawai'i. Because, did you know that in Hawai'i "wiki wiki" is a colloquialism meaning "hurry" or "speedy"?)


The thing of most note is the emphasis made on "cooperation", as a common strategy that was deemed the most successful (and safest) approach to use in hijackings. For us, the admonition was to keep the hijacker out of the cockpit if at all possible. The criminal would gain entry, if determined, by threatening the life of a passenger or crewmember in the cabin. We had code words, if an F/A called and used them, to know if she/he were under duress when calling, asking for entry. In some cases, then, we had a few "tricks" that would turn on warning lights, to make it look like there was a serious mechanical problem. Point being, to get the hijacker to agree that we HAD to land, or else we could all die.

Because, once on the ground, the FBI (if still in the USA) could then take over the negotiations. In fact, we were told that if the opportunity arose, and we could do it safely, we were to evacuate ourselves and escape, when on the ground, to diminish the hijackers' power.....and turn it into a static hostage situation..


But, 9/11 changed all of that....and finally led to not only the reinforced doors, but other strategies.

And, the 9/11 hijackers took advantage of the most obvious flaw in the "security" of the cockpit....the surprise element. And sheer brute force. All they needed for an opportunity was to rush the cockpit when the door was opened, and the crew were completely unaware of the danger. The door was routinely opened without regard to security, back then....it wasn't thought that a team would storm and force their way in, because it hadn't happened before.


The company you posted is one I'm aware of, here in Southern California. I looked at their website before....might go check them out one day, but their simulators are not the "real thing", sadly. Bit more like a sophisticated Disneyland ride.


I think several airlines, perhaps in Canada, maybe even here in the U.S., have programs similar to the one in the UK.



posted on Mar, 10 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Thanks for the info. It will be interesting to see to whom those people within the Saudi government and private sector can be linked to.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   
These Saudis were in America on 9/11...

Saudi Defense Minister, Saudi Minister of Foreign Affairs, Saudi Minister of Aviation, the head of Dallah Avco Group (the Saudi aviation firm that operated Boeing jetliners for the Saudi govt)


Tucked in the back of the commission's report (and later removed) was an account of three separate chartered airliners carrying about 100 Arab men (mostly Saudis) from Las Vegas on midnight transatlantic flights beginning September 19.

would these be the Saudis involved with the training in Arizona on the actual aircraft type used in the highjackings?


Also, the head of two of Saudi Arabia's holiest mosques stayed at the same hotel as the all-Saudi highjackers of AA77-at the Marriott Residence Inn in Herndon, Virginia-on the night of September 10.


Saudi Prince Bandar, the same guy who held George W. Bush's hand and was kissed by him

and who was Prince Turki's agent who met with Mohamed Atta in 2000 in Hanburg, Germany?

the above found on pg 37 of The Big Bamboozle

Saudi connection indeed



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 08:20 AM
link   
The Saudi pilots were trained by Saudis? What was the name of the facility again, where the training took place?
And what is the name of this high ranking muslim clerical with origin in Saudi Arabia, who shared the same hotel with the highjackers the nigher before the event?
edit on 15-3-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join