Pardon my obsession with the preposterous Charles Bishop cover story, but I've just found information that: 1) Cessna's can easily be operated by remote control and 2) Bishop did NOT respond in any way to a nearby helicopter pilot's communication contrary to earlier reports:
"He [Bishop] sat motionless at the controls. He would not look at the helicopter, nor would he respond to radio or hand signals telling him to land his aircraft".
Motionless can mean "determined." It can also mean knocked out.
Another mystery suicide Cessna pilot crashed his plane into the White
House. Remember? I'd forgotten too. That one has never been adequately
explained either. The year: 1994. The day: September 11.
http://geocities.com/roboplanes/cessna.html
"Although Corder's badly mangled body was recovered from the wreckage, there was no forensic way of establishing whether he had died in the crash itself, or several hours earlier. No one witnessed Frank Corder board or steal the Cessna in Maryland, and at no time did he make radio contact with the control tower or anyone else."
You can replace the name Charles Bishop for Frank Corder and the story is identical.
Note that this latest strange event happened in Tampa, spook central for aviation-related bin Laden stories: http://www.madcowprod.com/index11a.html.
"It does not take a rocket scientist to fit a basic remote control (plus rabbit), to a humble little Cessna standing unguarded at a remote civilian airfield."
The Tampa area is full of people who can do such things. The mechanic could have been home in time for dinner.
This latest media spectacle has all the authenticity of the recent "smoking gun" bin Laden tape found in an abandoned house in Afghanistan. You know, the one where bin Laden appears - mumbling inaudibly - significantly healthier and heavier than videos shot just weeks before after. In addition to being a master terrorist, credit card scam artist, and seducer of American youth is bin Laden also a binge eater?
Like that bit of video nonsense, the Charles Bishop story was also quickly shuffled offstage before real questions could be asked. The impression has been made, this time perhaps at the cost of an innocent young man's life, and I guess that's good enough for whoever cooked it up.
Now, I ask you, what does it mean when somebody runs around stupidly manufacturing evidence? It means they have a story which they want us to believe to cover up the story that they don't want us to know. Liars have a terrible habit of telling you exactly what they most desperately want to hide by the nature of the lies they tell.
As Joe Vialls points out, if an American kid can commit suicide for bin Laden via airplane, we shouldn't have any trouble believing that 19 "bin Laden" terrorists - who were not on the original passenger lists released to the news media - could do it too. Right?
This latest story makes as much sense as the doctoring of the translation of a bin Laden video shot years ago to make it appear he is taking credit for a recent crime. It's the reckless, desperate act of someone with a bad conscience who is sure others can see through their deceit.
I am now seriously wondering how hard it would be to wire four airliners for remote control operation. Several people, including Vialls, say that it's not a big deal. Certainly, plenty had been written about this technology before 9-11.
It must bother certain people that web sites receiving millions of hits per month have stories like the following on their home page. Thanks to the Charles Bishop episode, I'm beginning to understand why.
http://www.rense.com/general18/autoo.htm
http://www.rense.com/general18/opp.htm
http://www.rense.com/general18/valis.htm