Two months before 9/11, the Federal government banned guns in the cockpit.
A 40-year-old Federal Aviation Administration rule that allowed commercial airline pilots to be armed was inexplicably rescinded two months before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, leading aviation security experts to lay at least some of the blame for the tragedy at the feet of airlines, none of which took advantage of the privilege while it was in effect.
The FAA adopted the armed pilot rule shortly after the Cuban missile crisis of 1961 to help prevent hijackings of American airliners. It remained in effect for four decades.
But in July 2001 – just two months prior to the Sept. 11 attacks – the rule was rescinded.
9/11 never would have happened if the perpetrators knew that the pilots would be armed.
Because of this ingenious gun free zone, we have moved into a state of permanent war with thousands of lives lost and trillions of dollars spent.
I’ve been aware of the removal of firearms from cockpits since it changed after I did some Commercial License ground school in the early 90’s. But have you considered this?:
Not only would 911 not have happened according to the accepted narrative, but the perpetrators must have had to KNOW that the pilots could no longer have been armed! Since when are Middle-East extremists kept abreast of commercial-cockpit laws quietly changing?
There were no headlines when this brand new gun-free-zone happened.
Either that, or the purveyors of the official narrative knew that it wouldn’t fly until the law had been rescinded. Either way, it’s a pretty dark event.
All it would take is a few of the hijackers to learn of this in Flight School which they all were attending at various times, or even just someone hearing of it and passing it along to others. All the terrorists in sleeper cells had contacts that supplied them with money and information, and with each other.
Most likely though, is that the main planner, KSM had the information immediately and forwarded it to Atta and the others. They had to know, or else they would have brought more than mere box-cutters.
That’s a particularly powerful final statement, in the post above. And anyone professionally interested in probabilities and “coincidences” would have the same reaction as Joe, above, that it is suspicious the attack should follow so closely on the heels of the abrupt ending of a 40-year old policy.
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.