Missile––Drone?

 

                “I had nothing to do with the attacks!”
                                                                        — Osama Bin Laden

 

Is there technology for remote control aircraft?

Technology for the remote control piloting of aircraft has existed since the 1940s.  The CIA has even used drone (UAV) planes to carry out assassinations.[i]  In fact, prior to 9/11, there were plans to assassinate Osama Bin Laden with a Predator drone armed with “Hellfire” missiles, but the CIA and other administration officials opted not to attempt the operation.[ii] Other drones in common service with the U.S. military are the “Global Hawk”, BQM-34, and MQM-107 systems.  This remote control technology can also be installed on standard passenger-type aircraft.

 

Global Hawk UAV (Photo: USAF).

 

What was Operation “Northwoods”?

Operation “Northwoods” was an early ‘60’s plan by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to create a pretext for an invasion of Cuba.  The plans developed ways to trick the American public into supporting a war to oust Cuba’s Fidel Castro.

The operation laid forth an array of attacks on Americans by the US government, such as terrorism, hijackings, assassinations, and blowing up our own ships or planes.  One such plan was to create an incident, which would have a USAF jet, painted as a Cuban MIG, shoot down an American airliner over international waters in an unprovoked attack.  Their clever plan would have the airliner do a plane swap over Florida with a remote control airliner drone.  The real airliner would land safely, while the drone, over international waters, would be remotely detonated.

Fortunately for America, JFK rejected “Northwoods” (See Appendix for portions of the original, now declassified “Northwoods” document).

 

With today’s technology it is easy to remote control an aircraft from the air, ground, or both simultaneously.

            There are many defense contractors that produce remote control technology, such as Lockheed-Martin and Boeing, but one person and one company, seems to stand.

Rabbi Dov Zakheim, who latter would become Comptroller of the Pentagon in May 2001, headed a high-tech company, called System Planning Corp (SPC) that specialized in drone electronics.

According to the company website, they specialize in many areas of defense technology, including a highly sophisticated war-game technology that allows the control of as many as eight different drones from a remote location, either on the ground or airborne, with a range of several hundred miles.  This technology can be used on many different types of aircraft, including large passenger jets.[iii]  In October 1994, NASA flew a Boeing 737 on 110 flawless remote controlled missions (See Appendix: Remote Control for full story).[iv]  It would seem System Planning Corp could convert just about any aircraft that suited their purposes into a remote control variant and have it able to follow commands from the air or ground.  An EC-130 outfitted with the “DC” drone control gear would be an excellent platform for Rabbi Zakheim’s technology. 

One theory has the 767’s involved in the WTC attacks––as coming from the USAF KC-767 tankers that were outfitted with remote-control electronics.  Rabbi Zakheim was directly involved in both the tanker deal (with Richard Perle) and the drone technology.

 

Experts expect up to 2,000 UAVs in 5-10 years.  That’s now!

(Image: NDIA)

 

MQM-107 drone (Photo: U.S. Army).

 

The website, Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles gives the following description of a Raytheon MQM-107 Drone:

 

The MQM-107 Streaker is a high-subsonic subscale aerial target used by the U.S. Army and Air Force.  The MQM-107A is powered by a turbojet in a nacelle under the fuselage, and is launched from a zero-length launcher with the help of a single solid-propellant rocket booster.  The target can fly preprogrammed missions, but can also be controlled from the ground through a radio command guidance system.  The Streaker’s flight envelope includes speeds from about 370 km/h (200 kts.) to 926 km/h (500 kts.), constant high-g turns, and flight at very low altitudes.  The target is recovered by a two-stage parachute system, which is initiated either automatically by loss of critical systems, or by ground command.  The MQM-107A can use the usual variety of payloads for aerial targets, including radar, IR, and visual augmentation devices, scoring devices, and countermeasures.[v]

 

New generation drone — Composite Engineering BQM-167 Skeeter

In late 2001, the U.S. Air Force initiated the AFSAT (Air Force Subscale Aerial Target) program for a new jet-powered target drone to supplement, and ultimately replace, the BQM-34A Firebee and MQM-107D/E Streaker drones.  The AFSAT requirements were issued to the industry, and in July 2002, Composite Engineering Inc.’s (CEI) Skeeter target, first flown in 2001, was selected for further development as the BQM-167A.

 

New Generation drone — BQM-167A

 (Photo: Composite Engineering Inc.).

 

The BQM-167A is of very similar layout as the MQM-107 Streaker, and is powered a ventrally mounted turbojet engine.  It can be air or ground launched, and can carry the full range of current target payloads, including radar enhancers, IR sources, and countermeasures, scoring devices, and towed targets.  The Skeeter can reach a speed of about Mach 0.91, and fly at altitudes between 6 m (20 ft) and 15000 m (50000 ft).  The BQM-167A is constructed mainly of carbon fiber composites, which makes the airframe significantly lighter than the similar-sized BQM-34 and MQM-107, thereby significantly increasing the range for a given payload weight.[vi]

 

The Amalgam Virgo literature shows an abundant list of standard drones, however the technology is easily installed to any aircraft (Image: NDIA).

 

Family of Teledyne Ryan targets and RPVs  (Photo: Teledyne).

 

Was an aging A3 painted in AA colors and equipped with remote control? (Photo: U.S. Navy)

 

Why would a C-130 need to guide a jet into the Pentagon?

As we previously mentioned, Kelly Knowles, who lived a few miles from the Pentagon saw some sort of plane following the first jet toward the Pentagon, “…[it] seemed to be chasing the first…”¹⁹⁹ Her account agreed with what her brother saw: “it flew directly above the American Airlines jet, as if to prevent two planes from appearing on radar while at the same time guiding the jet toward the Pentagon.”  Others collaborated their story.¹⁹⁹ In a similar account, Allen Cleveland stated, “My brother-in-law also witnessed the same plane following the jet…”  He said that he saw a jetliner flying low…  And soon afterwards a military plane was seen flying right behind it.” ²⁰⁰

The C-130 not only guided the “jet” to the Pentagon, but made a full circle above it, before making a course due west.  An Arlington National Cemetery worker claimed, “ that a mysterious second plane was circling the area when the first one attacked the Pentagon.”²⁰¹ A military commander identified the aircraft as an “electronic warfare aircraft” EC-130, which is a C-130 modified for radar “jamming” or drone control.²⁰⁷

This would make sense of why the C-130 was following the other jet, which probably was a remote controlled drone.  If the EC-130 was serving as the “eyes and ears” for the drone, then obviously it would want to stay close by, like following above for the best view.  The C-130 was noted to veer away about the time of the attack.²⁰⁰ If the C-130 veered away suddenly –– does this indicates that this pilot was taking some sort of evasive action just prior to the collision and explosion?

 

Aircraft labeled MU-2 is circling above the drone relaying it

instructions via radio remote control (Image: NDIA).

 

An EC-130 (DC variant) is fully capable of controlling an aircraft remotely (Photo: USAF).

 

Here the drone signals are relayed through ground channels

 (Image: NDIA).

 

The drone can be targeted by high-precision GPS.  Note the target is a city (Panama City), not the AFB (Image: NDIA).

 

Complex routes by numerous aircraft simultaneously would simulate an event similar to the FAA grounding (Image: NDIA). 

The above image contains several aircraft types:

SUICIDE – Commercial airliner (?)

UAV – “Phoenix Air” BD-5 “mini jets” (as surrogate UAVs).

RPV – MQM-107 drones (as surrogate “cruise missiles”).

UNK – Unknown.

CD – Diversions, Lear jets (?)

 

The Amalgam Virgo literature made reference to this photo of a Lear jet, which are used by the likes Phoenix Air (Image: NDIA).

 

Phoenix Air was involved with the Amalgam Virgo exercise — this is the same air school the supposed hijackers were using: 

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) – The July memo from a Phoenix, Arizona, FBI agent talking about Middle Eastern men taking flying lessons and the information about Zacarias Moussaoui arrested in August went to the same FBI task force at headquarters, according to an official. …[vii]

 

Also, it is Interesting that the same “nodal pattern” of programmed

flight-paths was seen in the hijacked flights on 9/11

(Image: team8plus.org).

 

Is the high explosive damage consistent with a missile?

Along with the missile-type entry hole and initial brilliant white fireball, few weapons are capable of penetrating the amount of reinforced concrete seen in the Pentagon attack.  This brilliant white fireball is typical of the plasma-type reaction of a depleted-uranium warhead (more below).

 

The fireball seen is typical of a plasma-type reaction of a depleted-Uranium warhead (Photo: Daryl Donley/loc.gov).

The Chinese embassy in Belgrade after a cruise missile strike

(Photo: balkanpeace.org).

 

Also, skeptics complained that a 757 couldn’t fit into the Pentagon “crash hole”–– would a small jet or drone be more of a reasonable fit?  It would also agree with the absence of debris, the BQM-34 series and the MQM-107 or 167A models, have no landing gear and have engines that are smaller than a 757’s.  The largest of these drones is slightly smaller than a F-16 fighter.  The new MQM-167A, built and tested in 2001, has a lightweight “composite” exterior, which would have shattered into a thousand small pieces.

 

All three of the 9/11 attacks had eerie similarities.

In support of the evidence for controlled demolition, missiles, and remote controlled aircraft is that these similar methods were used at the World Trade Center (WTC) attacks.

 

The WTC “controlled demolition” has been established as fact

 (Photos: 911research.wtc7.net).

 

The infamous “missile flash” just prior to impacting WTC

 

Bright white warhead (c/w DU plasma) exiting the WTC

(Photo: rumormillnews.com).

 

Many researchers postulate that KC-767 tankers filled with fuel and explosives hit the WTC towers (Photo: USAF).

 

Witnesses make references to a missile.

“Rick M.” claimed, “…we heard a sound like a missile…”[viii] And while Mike Walter was one of the Gannett “trolls”, he stated, “…it was like a cruise missile with wings”[ix] His recollection was similar to
Joel Sucherman’s statement, “almost like a heat-seeking missile was locked onto its target.” ²⁰³ Both of the aforementioned did go on to claim it was an American Airliner that struck the Pentagon.  But if they were lying — as many feel they were — could these references have been an “alluding to the truth”?

“It sounded like a missile,” Micheal DiPaula recalled… and Richard Benedetto said it “sounded like an artillery shell.” ²⁵⁸ [x] Pentagon network engineer Tom Seibert said he heard what “sounded like a missile” crash into the building.[xi]  While countless witnesses that were inside the Pentagon at the moment of the strike, claim to have heard “whooshes”, smacks, etc.  These are not exactly the words one would describe an airliner crash with.  And Professor David H. Edwards recalled:

 

Immediately after I boarded the Orange Line [Metro Line] train, a young man and a young woman, both in their early twenties and wearing backpacks, burst into the subway car, shouting and exhibiting extreme excitement and agitation.  They addressed the entire car, which was mostly empty except for me and perhaps three or four other men in suits.  The young people yelled: “We were standing at the Pentagon Station, waiting for the train to come, and we saw a missile fly into the Pentagon!  We saw it, we saw it!”  One of the men sitting closer to them must have asked for clarification, because they reiterated the same information several times, saying repeatedly: “A missile, we saw it, a missile, it flew right into the Pentagon.  I can’t believe it.  Now it’s on fire, there’s smoke!”[xii]

 

Lon Rains was “convinced a missile” hit the Pentagon by the way it sounded and how fast it flew in.  He stated:

 

At that moment I heard a very loud, quick whooshing sound that began behind me and stopped suddenly in front of me and to my left.  In fractions of a second I heard the impact and an explosion.  The next thing I saw was the fireball.  I was convinced it was a missile.  It came in so fast it sounded nothing like an airplane.[xiii]

 

In a Parade Magazine interview, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, made his infamous “slip of the tongue”:

 

Here we’re talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center.[xiv]

[Emphasis added]

 

Radiation experts have gone on record stating that the depleted uranium came from a missile. 

As previously mentioned, Major Rokke, who once headed the military’s depleted-Uranium project, believes the Pentagon was hit by a missile, not a commercial jetliner, insisting that high radiation readings after the strike reinforces the fact that DU may have been used.²⁸⁵ Most of these “shaped-charged” guided weapons contain a highly secret “dense metal” — called depleted-uranium (DU), it is twice the density of steel.  They easily penetrate steel, or reinforced concrete, and then explode with intense heat inside their targets.  Radiation expert Leuren Moret, stated, “…What happened at the Pentagon is highly suspicious, leading me to believe a missile with a depleted uranium warhead may have been used.”²⁸⁵

The U.S. military’s newer generation weapons are far more devastating than can be imagined.  Numerous missles and “smart” bombs now contain DU in their warheads.  If DU (up to 60% the radioactivity of normal) was used like in large, explosive “hard-target” warheads (MWS-see below) there will be very high levels of radioactive contamination.  Any warheads containing uranium will cause permanent Alpha, Beta, and Gamma radiation hazards in the target areas.  Thus, the reason why there was a decontamination process at the Pentagon was to remove and hide these radioactive materials.

 

Were these agents picking up pieces of “composite”

from a MQM-167 drone? (Photo: Carmen Burgess)

 

Blast injuries and the high explosive damage would be consistent with a missile.

Witnesses in the Pentagon, like Lt. Col. Marc Abshire, who described a shockwave, “…It shot me back in my chair.  There was a huge blast.  I could feel the air shock wave of it. … It was more of a direct smack.”²⁹⁷ Peggy Mencl said, “It blew me 10 feet”.  At about 9:20 a.m., another blast victim observed, “All of a sudden, the windows blew in…”  While Sheila Moody “ … heard a whoosh and a whistle and she wondered where all this air was coming from.  Then a blast of fire that left as fast as it came.”⁸¹   Others like, Mr. Peter Murphy, was knocked entirely across rooms, or down corridors.  “ …[Lt. Col. Brian Birdwell] was knocked down,  When he stood up, he realized he was on fire.”[xv]  It was reported that the medical teams had treated many blast injuries.

 

What is a Multiple Warhead System?

The Multiple Warhead System (MWS) model would have been the most likely explosive used in the Pentagon attack (most likely in conjunction with conventional “controlled demolition”.

 

The two shaded portions are the charges.

 

On the front of the missile, there is a conventional explosive, shaped as an “hollow charge”, whose aim is to dig a hole in a wall, while on the back, an uranium load.  This metal has the property of exploding when is propelled against such solid materials, creating a deadly plasma effect inside the target.  On a smaller scale, this principle is used to destroy tanks.

 

AGM-86 cruise missile uses Multiple Warhead System technology.

Of several variations of the “Cruise missile”, the multiple warhead penetrator version of the CALCM called the AGM-86D (Block II) is the state of the art in killing.  With a 2000 lb. warhead that can shred thru reinforced concrete with a hollow charge that would blasts an entry hole, then broaches inside the depleted-uranium charge, this in turn, explodes inside the target.  Interestingly, the concept of cruise missiles is not new technology; the original cruise missile was the pre-programmed German “buzz bombs” that attacked London during WWII.  In essence a “Cruise missile” is a drone.

 

First “Cruise missile” was the WWII Nazi FZG-76-Flakzielgerat

(Photo: fiddlersgreen.net).

 

However, among other things, modern versions, have more advanced warheads and computerized navigational systems.

 

USAF AGM-86 “Cruise missile” in flight (Photo: USAF).

 

General Specifications:

The AGM-86D CALCM Block II is equipped with a new Lockheed Martin 540 kg (1200 lb) AUP (Advanced Unitary Penetrator) penetrating warhead for use against deeply buried and/or hardened targets.

Length: 20 feet, 9 inches
Wingspan: 12 feet
Speed: AGM 86C, high subsonic
Warheads: AGM-86C; Block 0, 2,000 pound class, and Block I, 3,000 pound class.

[The AGM-86D Block II program is the Precision Strike variant of CALCM  this variant of CALCM was successfully demonstrated in December 1996.  See Appendix:AGM-86, for more complete info.]

 

Many weapon systems are possible.

This type of air-to-ground missile (AGM) is what is used to hit buildings and bunkers causing damage like the 15-foot diameter hole in front of the Pentagon.  Many aircraft have the capability of firing such AGM systems:

 

Israeli made AGM-142 on a small jet (Photo: Lockheed Martin).

 

From the internet site Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles, here is an excerpt on using air-to-ground missiles (AGM) on drones, as far back as 1971!

 

Like the Navy’s BQM/SSM, the BGM-34A was piloted by an operator watching a TV image transmitted from the drone’s nose.  In tests during 1971/72, the BGM-34As successfully launched AGM-65 Maverick air-to-surface missiles and electro-optically guided glide bombs against simulated SAM sites.  Interestingly, almost 30 years later a firing of an AGM-114 Hellfire missile by an MQ-1L Predator UAV was much hyped as a breakthrough in armed UAV technology.[xvi]

 

            Interestingly an AGM-65 Maverick air-to-surface missile can be equipped as a DU warhead “bunker-buster”.  Therefore, the attack as being postulated here could have been carried out with technology that’s 30 years old!

 

A BGM-34B drone from 1974 showing its AGM capacity

(Photo: Bud Wolford).

 

A similar BGM-34C type drone (Photo: USAF).

 

There are many possibilities of how a drone might have been used in the Pentagon strike.  Unfortunately, we don’t have the level of details at this point in time to specifically identify the exact vehicle of deployment. 

 

But, we do have enough substantiation to make a strong case that a drone similar to a MQM-107, MQM-167, or cruise missile, equipped with MWS was involved in the Pentagon attack.

 

Can a Multiple Warhead System explain everything that happened?

No, a MWS cannot explain the complete effects to the Pentagon, such as the multiple explosions, how it burned all night, the explosive collapse of the roof, and isolated destruction caused by several different explosive events.

The most reasonable explanation or lack there of — an aircraft (remote controlled or otherwise), or a missile cannot solely explain the damage at the Pentagon.  Nor can controlled demolition explain all the damage — only both together can explain the patterns of damage seen at both the WTC and the Pentagon.