Crucial Information On 9/11, Alex Jones interview w/ Col. Grand-Pre

In this interview by Alex Jones, Former military pilot and chief arms negotiator for the Middle East Col. Don de Grand-Pre alleges many HUGE details of the 9/11 attacks.

Along with this allegation, he states that he personally knows the man who shot down Flight 93 and that a Global Hawk Missle hit the Pentagon as a tactical diversion. What's also incredible is the relationship this man says he has with high ranking officials. When asked what percentage of the military have woken up to what is going on, he answered

If this guy isn't a complete fraud, I think he could be the biggest asset to the 9/11 Truth Movement. He has basically answered almost all of the biggest mysteries of what happened that day. I think everyone needs to take a look at this interview and if this guy is deemed legit, Dylan and company should take a serious look into this guy for the Final Cut.

The Transcript: http://www.prisonplanet.com/022904degrand.html


(Forum member HallowsEve posted this interview yesterday in the "9/11 Truth in the Media" section of these forums but it really hasn't gotten much attention. Also, I did find that this interview was brought up months ago but again I think it fell through the cracks.)

awesome!!

Fascinating, cool post my friend. Will definitely take a look at the transcript...

Interesting.

OpenEyes-

Glad to see you started the thread up over here. Hopefully more people will get a look at it.

Here is a copy of one of my posts from the thread pertaining to the Grand-Pre Seminar in the 9/11 Truth in Media section:
-----------------------------------

An excerpt from Webster Tarpley's book pertaining to the Grand-Pre Seminar (Tarpley pg.191-193,9/11 Synthetic Terror):


In the days after 9/11, a private group of US military and civilian pilots held a seminar to evaluate this crucial feature of the official story – could the hijackers have flown the planes with the requisite accuracy? After 72 hours of deliberation and discussion, they issued a press release summarizing their findings: “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 seminar report expressed grave doubt as to whether the alleged hijackers, supposedly trained on Cessna light aircraft, could have located a target dead-on 200 miles or more from their takeoff point. The participants also called into question the ability of the hijackers to operate within the intricacies of the instrument flight rules (IFR) during the interval between their takeover of the planes and the moment of impact. One of the organizers of the seminar, retired Colonel Donn Grandpre, said that it would be impossible for novices to have taken control of the four aircraft and orchestrated such a complicated operation, which obviously had as a prerequisite military precision of the highest order. The seminar concluded that it was likely that the hijackers were not the ones in control of the aircraft. One participant in the seminar was a US Air Force officer who flew over 100 sorties during the Vietnam war. This experienced combat pilot concluded that “Those birds either had a crack fighter pilot in the left seat, or they were being maneuvered by remote control.”


Another spokesman for the group was identified as Captain Kent Hill (USAF retired), who was reportedly a friend of Chic Burlingame, the pilot of the plane that crashed into the Pentagon. Hill recalled that the US had already carried out multiple flights of an unmanned aircraft, similar in size to a Boeing 737, between Edwards Air Force base in California across the Pacific to South Australia. Hill said this plane had flown on a preprogrammed flight path under the supervision of a pilot in an outside station.


Other expert witnesses at the inquiry were of the opinion 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. 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.


According to press accounts, the pilot seminar also pointed to the inherent problems of the official account. In this, they drew on their own experience and the likely reactions of pilots like themselves. “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.” The veteran pilots were also surprised by what had not happened. They noted that the pilots and crews of the hijacked aircraft 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 them to believe that they had no control over their aircraft.


A reporter from the Portugal News, the largest English language publication in that
country, sought an independent evaluation of these findings from Captain Colin McHattieof Algarve, Portugal. McHattie, a pilot with 20 years’ experience, was then currentlyworking for Cathay Pacific. He agreed with the independent commission’s findings. He added 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 pilots’ seminar sent a copy of their findings to the White House, but there was no response. (Portugal News, August 3, 2002)

Here's the audio version of the same transcript OpenEyes provided.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/022904degrandpre.html

Bump

I still would like to see the reactions on this interview from more forum members....


chucksheen, londoneye, quest...?

I say "WTF are these people waiting for?"

If he really thinks its 70% of his people, then what are these so called leaders waiting around for? You can't convince em all.

Otherwise pretty good interview!

When was this interview taken? Alex doesnt provide a date on the transcript.

This interview was conducted on February 25, 2004. Kind of disheartening because it's been more than two years since and none of the "70%" he claims to know what's going on have come out.

Somewhere on letsroll is a thread on him......Phil was real hot on him, then caught him in something--and that was the end of him......can't remember, but the impression have is not good--man, that's 2-1/2 years ago.... he had a stroke, I bought of his books and they were bizarre ramblings, that as far as I could see didn't contain any information! Never read anything like it, before or since. He was defense ind. related.

izzy

I was looking over the comments about Col. Grand-pre on the LetsRoll forums and I didn't find any that discredited him. Phil actually said the he met the man in person and vouches for his honesty...

I'll bet he deleted them--thanx for looking.
It might have been the claim that he talked to the pilot who "shot down flt 93" and it turned out to be not true....but don't hold me to it. He stopped getting invitations for interviews-- he went from a "hot interview" to zip.... This is a couple of years ago, which is two lifetimes in 9/11 time....... If you can post there, how about raising the question if de Pris is credible....and direct it to Phil--whatever the final deal was Phil called him and never brought him up again.